A 8.355%sz {3F mwmm mo

an: a ma. ammnas m socmmemsv - ~
arwm m ms 3mm. Psvcmwam _. _

SWSY 0F SELF CONCEPT

- masts fur the Degee at M. A; '
{VIE-CHER?! "STATE UNEVERSEW.
“SHERRY MK,
1972'

. n . .

llllIllllllflzllflfllllllflllfllflfll! "MIME“ ‘

31

 

; ’ 711- ‘, nrrfi
¢~-—)‘—r vL—“ou &

’ F"°"'-"T’.‘:Q’." (TA ‘-'-"-'*'"'..‘."‘ “2”!" .--. ""~'~71“*'r‘.-.- " 2“",":-:rv-"V~ n“ (”in ‘ I‘mw
.1 V‘Vn—q .“nJ-U\-I Vfi. Va. J“! A .L‘v-uo-“ IQ—n J “fiinl— ‘dot - “9’.-d"‘ ‘4‘- — .ybimv “JD 1V QL‘U-n—Vha ‘.

I s m) )T ‘1‘-“ ([1-?-‘ r... ”T . — “C'If‘~-— -- “if' '7‘!‘ . .- £71-- ~— ’ 7'1 CW‘T T‘fi (WC- '03:),11

it- - u‘n—o' “J L‘V ¢—M-—‘ H’N—‘Ju‘o—J .- ~‘ld--~._:\l\.q._;_\.'."-—_J b‘ Ud-b U- Ud—‘A‘ V

0‘

C7~,f;--‘-—I" a», ‘.
v‘-\-t_ .1 ‘ ——1‘-

I. .2 I 1 O ' ‘ J. — I f." i. .
:--'~ Q ~-\ ‘-' -— ._ - f- I. . ~ - A- .- ,\;:‘.- u- a
.L b-.-- 1.;1V J—L- Ll—l-A-E U- v:.Ln—; LI.._v \ ...._._..L v 3&1.. v: va .3LAI CO 1\rKJJ:1 U100. .1.
P'fi . r‘""C" OWL“. .5 f \ ‘-1 ' . ”r“ "" fi‘r".,' P, “ ,‘31'1 13-sr1‘: f.- L-r-x: [L4, J- ~q
k. -. V-_—1-LJUV-_ J—L.-- .— ‘ngu -v; U-’ LJV-«v——Vw‘ ' ._ - .L-a .11.; ("UV Ca- \. Ud' 1.1..L': 1.1;.LK/
" ‘4'*-c "h J"‘.’;. -";r~-'--'-wn~'- -~:~--c~",ur--T‘"-r.'|r~- ~--- ~ *6» v’” H"? 1.259 r‘ $743 Aw
.l-'-. -‘......-u 0.1. U”: g-...< u_._n. u .- - «I- u... .A v.1, L-.-- L.-v;& ;. -- 1...; u-l ‘ C JUU-:-..*_;1CJL.
- - — ‘
.*H'1" Lax-3361;" r: ‘L A c‘ ‘ " '- ‘ 4 fl 7'” "h f ,1 r: "f' r”, - - Q “S" r- '1 v7 ~1nc~ ‘-—:
C- r“... -. uv- ._o -‘.Cu tau 9 'LC-;-_. .. L- ..... ....v- \-.'. -VCd'..-“ C-.C... 0U . _ (“-1. J. .9 c, .L C11
.L". 3 HA“. .9 a-.. . L
(1-1 UHL, QV;.J. CMLCG 5L; c
n:. ,1 .24 J. .U :M‘ P ..n N-.- fl. .- , ' '~ 7:.“ - 4 . 1.«~ 1-
I .L LA»; U-1€.U U113 .2... 3.:‘93 0.. L411- v.‘..l.. EJC1:\_ 4.4-4.9 '7I‘CS 'le “CL 0]
. '- ° . “- . ‘ ' J. 1.; . " .' ' - . , .: .L 1 ' 5.." rv
.- ; a .1 a . . - a” A. A m o r‘ p ‘c F: .
CCHVCHU¢CAL_ ana 0;; VQHU+M_ s;c_gn.;‘ “re g~*pe L11; rent. no
0.. J— at“ -"‘\H,- . ---n “1‘ (Q ’~ '9 ‘5‘p C‘P-z- - _ ~‘i‘-" ‘A Mr )§ JV1'.‘ f‘q . '7 l“ :‘
1.1V”. ; vul \- v p; *' .364-.. C . vv u._ v' 4;- a.“ a; C.‘ ...c.-L C... .';1g.-lu(3u. .Lfl

o_ ‘ ‘3"

mm the

"‘ ‘ J"? I .1 - ~>~r\v- - - - ‘r U.‘-.' ’- "" 9' ' F'.‘ - ' - 1‘ 'I': “ q
CUJJCJU 0:1afi fxmned034 ”"4“” g_; S mmu's ‘“;"V-uf mace us 5 ;mu;us
.- . .‘.. 'TN--4-.,\‘ .'-.' . ,I’ ,, .' ’ .. , 'L.'..‘ .3..: ““1, U
res;OASLre. “huge“s c3“.v“u_3:"_ SuCLONCp; ,051ulw;su;ca;¢g 00595
P: c-L fl} —‘ (.3 1”; (TV '0 5"] luv-r14 "v: Pa"- '-,-\v-.“ I‘ r~~q ."'.a c ' r; '- r - ' A». v A of

L'. U ksJ—V I’v-V‘uI OJ. kw- blul 1—4.; -‘—VC— at v- —-—' I... Va'--'—L.a ovlln Uikv-- kh-l LI*1KISS
4.1,. no J. .0 3.. .2”: . .. ‘ was. -_--.:. - .‘fi . ' Y . .

who eL¢e Us L SALUCU¢QJ tn“ cpJucuu C3;nCiLUS Jltfl a process

‘1‘. ‘SJ‘f 'L -, I‘ c: ‘ fvfi C‘J‘fi f‘J‘:r\'-\ fx-D r- C-' r- Qq‘.‘ ’. t9
0; .LOLLLJC uiOJ CJ. kL LL VOCiC:_ C'uLi-g, U..qu b.5vau v.1. L". C-.€.L1Ui11b ranLJ. J

I
vzeJfiOLAt.
.. -w *_ . .. .' ,_ u-.. v n -1, .-° .1. .2.'
I concluge a; supnorthQ Md ,scl arencc f01~tge eulsu m1ula*

' "I -'~ ~ I - w ,‘u F --\"‘ :r- Lffi ‘- “P" ~ I 1 ‘- . ‘1.

304au of Ilcx, ang eJ»¢:s;z e Una mesh ;or a D¢;cnce 1n Lne usage

M awn. ,, 1-, - : ‘~-'. ,'~ '. - ---
o; uuud C‘VTOQCACS Lo soc&ol v;c;4 lagulrj

A COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND EXISTENTIAL APPROACHES TO SOCIOLOGY

AS APPLIED TO THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY OF SELF CONCEPT

By

Sherry Sank

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1972

PREFACE

Befbre beginning, I would like to note my constant
struggle in writing this thesis. The struggle arises from
the dilemna of writing a paper which appeals to an existential
perspective in a conventional form. The schizoid nature of this
content-form split is experienced uncomfortably by me.

There is also a contradiction involved in writing a thesis
which criticizes the very preliminary assumptions implicit in
thesis requirements. For this reason, this paper should be looked

on as a thesis anti-theses.

P n." LSQ‘S I). ' on

  

‘J

My thanks:

m.}‘(b€, ,
1r fend-.1

 
  

{
/

      

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

           

Imxhgg
4\ Slot)

know of the dis/ease of dividing and
integrating the world, but still allow
me my attempts at it. I accept, in
all fairness, (or at least some) my
re3ponsibility of remaining aware of

my ownflarge ineptness at it. I

x

  

. a" o-o-~-—

 

\\

(Pick at least a few)

— o o - ‘23:: I o
valué this ineptness and its

#1

 

\ umvr rm” ’
I Y)‘ A) 7‘ :1 ,
.L’.Y(t? I

mt
implications of the impossibilityJOf the
‘\‘—’\
endeavor, but also realize that
A
actually everything is'possiblgyin all

 
        

/
things, and nothing, really,\is inherent.

 

>, -4
Fl P‘l (\
a) m (D
C +4 ‘0
o . ed .p o a
P w ~+ > 0 V
o'o ‘H ‘p o '8 2)
-H c m o ,g
'o o '0 a a
m.p 0 5
£4 :3 ,5, 1—! H > 0 .C 9')
‘P-H r! r4 r4 .4 .c my
(3 a) m m a) 4.: 7<
o v v tH m
O "-1 P 4-, or! '44 0 (V
G (U ‘U G 0 0
b0 w-l ad a)
g W1 +1 +: 44 r4 a v6
'2 m o o o «4 o .
0 'o c a 'o m a 'f
a}: a; ' a s ' u; "
.Q m v)

H.
[-10
Ho

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WEFACEOOOOOOOOO.I...0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0....

AcmdmmE'EE‘ITSooooocoooodooooooooooooooooooo000000000

an

I.

II.

INTRODUCTION................................
Conventional Sociology......................
Existential Sociology.......................
THE ALTERNATIVES COEPARED...................
Conventional Approach.......................
1. J. Kinch.............................

. Problem..............................
MethodOIOgy..........................
Applied Characteristics..............

' 2. M. Kuhn and T. McPartland............
Problem..............................
MethodOIOgy..........................
Findings.............................
Interpretation of Findings...........
Applied Characteristics..............
EXistential Approach........................
1. Goffman..............................
Assumptions..........................

iv

ii

iii

15
18
18
18
19
20
22
22
22
23
2h
25
27
27
27

BEER

Perspective............................. 29
Example................................. 31
Applied Characteristics................. 33
2. Laing................................... 36
Fundamental Concepts.................... 36
Perspective on Madness................. 38
Applied Characteristics................. no

Overview: The Conventional and Existential
PerspeCtiVGSOQ0900000000000...00000000000000 “'3

III. CONCLUSIONOOOOOO000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.. “'9

Conventional Sociology:
DisadvantageSoooooooo0000000000000... 50

Existential Sociology:
AdvantageS.......o................... 56

BImlImRAPHY.00.......0...00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 65
APPB‘IDIX A.ooooooooooo0.000000000000000...0000000000000... 67

APPE'I'DIX BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....OOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOIOOO. 73

I.

LIST OF TABLES

1213.2

Self conception -- Image of Man

1&5

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

In the first part of this introductory chapter I will discuss the
"conventional style" of sociological analysis. I will simply state,
define and explain the theoretical and methodological characteristics
of most sociological studies. I will discuss six "tools" which are
conventionally used in sociology. Later in the chapter I will compare
the discussed conventional orientations with other useful and stimulating
alternatives. The differences between these alternatives lie in
their relative emphasis n it is not that they are completely distinct and
disjoint approaches. ‘However. in order to clarify in grappling with
the_differences between conventional and existential sociology, I
will sharpen the distinctions. In dealing with alternative possibilities
I'will try to show the drawbacks of the conventional style, and the
advantages of the alternative approach. It is my general feeling,
that although both approaches have disadvantages, the advantages of
existential sociology are underplayed and its usefulness is

neglected along with its use.

Conventional Sociology

 

Below are six selected characteristics of sociology. I am not
claiming their universal use. I am simply pointing out several
different modes of thinking common in everyday sociology. The
content of sociological studies seems shaped by the ferms of
theory building and methodology felt necessary. While there is no
single paradigm used by sociologists, these typifications describe
an aggregate sample of conventional sociological ideals. These
ideals can be seen as sought after in such things as modes of teaching,
journal criteria, thesis and dissertation requirements and bases of
evaluation for grants.

It should be noted from the start that these six characteristics
are ideals rather than attained characteristics. Conventional
sociologists strive towards these high statused ideals. However, the

ideals set Up are often not met in actual conventional sociological works.

1. axiomatic

 

Conventional sociology typically makes use of axioms.
Assumptions are often expressed (or non-expressed) as axioms.t
Certain basic elements of a discussed theory or methodological
approach are accepted as "givens." Concepts of a theory are often
implicitly defined by axioms. Sometimes more eXplicitly, axioms define

a theory. For example, the axioms of group theory define the theory

of groups by specifying what kinds of objects are called groups. In
this vein sociologists frequently make use of what are seen as self-
evident factors. Specific maxims are presented as if there were
general agreement about their validity, even though this validity is
actually undemonstrable. Principles are established which, although
not necessarily true, are nearly universally accepted among scientists
in a given segment of the field, and further built upon for theoretical
and/or methodological considerations. Certain facts are taken fer
granted in order to work with prepositions which have been derived
from these axioms.' Consistent statements about undefinable phenomena
fOrm the basis for discourse. Already prepared material (prepositions,
statistics) are transferred as a feundation of new material. In this
way sociologists simplify epistemological issues, make assumptions, and

avoid "starting at the beginning" for every new project.

2. deductive

 

Sociological methodology usually proceeds with a deductive model
in mind. A conclusion is deduced from premises. The result follows in
a logical way, reasonably and chronologically, from the premises. In
this way, the use of a deductive approach is related closely to
sociologists' use of axioms.‘ A deductive model is seen as helpful in
simplifying through explaining with "laws." It relates explanation and
prediction as closely associated, by fecusing on how events and phenomena

fellow from one another. A conclusion is certain and necessary if the

premises are certain and necessary. The result's credibility fellows
_ from the credibility of the steps leading up to it. A conclusion is
‘seen as derivable by reason as a result or consequence of what came
befbre it.

From a general principle, sociologists-typically derive something
about particular cases. With deductive reasoning, general broad
conclusions are derived from (the already spoken of) axioms - sociologists
proceed from general principles to other general principles and then
go on to apply these to specific cases. Deductive methodology builds
from given axioms. "Bmpirically described facts are eXplained by
showing that they can be deduced logically from assured theoretical
premises in conjunction with already given empirical conditions."l

Deduction is an ideal for conventional sociologists. Although
much induction is used, deductive methodology is aimed for. It is a

highly prized characteristic for conventional sociology.

3. hypothesis testing

 

The social science model with which I am concerned involves ideally
the testing of hypotheses. The sociologist makes testable assertions,
statements or propositions — these are his hypotheses. He posits a

relationship between two or more nondirectly related phenomena. He

 

1Thomas P. Wilson, "Normative and Interpretive Paradigms in
Sociology," in Understanding Everyday Life, ed. by Jack Douglas
(Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 61-62.

deduces hypotheses from axioms assembled into theories which are
sources of further theories. Hopefully, the hypotheses will be
fruitful: not only must they be tested, but the social scientist
attempts to form them so that other hypotheses and theories can be
deduced from the proof of them. Eventually, a decision must be

made about whether or not given hypotheses yield predictions which

can be tested, i.e., are capable of Operational definition.
Sociologists have been very concerned with the testability of their
hypotheses. In order to create testable hypotheses, only certain types
of problems can be studied. Because of this, methods have often defined
problems, rather than the problems defining the methodology. The
premium on hypothesis testing has led to a triteness of the problems

studied.

a. quantification

 

Conventional sociology seeks to be a systematic discipline.
Methodology has been stressed as the means to theory building.
Theoretical constructs are expected to be validated in a quantitative
fashion, leaving ideal (as Opposed to practical and applicable) issues
aside.

Measurement — the ascertaining of dimensions and generalizability -
has been displayed as the core of science. And in wanting to view
themselves as scientific, sociologists have emphasized measurement.

Statistical research is usually seen as the valid measuring technique.

Measuring has been looked at as a quantitative problem. Quantification
through statistical methods has created a focusing on what can be
viewed as objective (value - free) and empirical (observable). Therefore,
in their scientific quest, sociologists have defined as meaningful those
hypotheses which can be tested in a quantitative way. Their energies
are directed towards studying observable behavior. Testing has been
seen as a quantitative Operation calling fOr percentages, probability,
counting, etc.

An example where the high premium on quantative analysis can
be seen is significance testing. With it there is much debate
as to what "constitutes correct use Of tests Of significance, and
whether such use if practiced or practicable in behavioral research."2
In spite of the controversy about the usefulness Of these tests,

they are still commonly used.

5. Operationalism

 

Sociologists, with their concern with quantitative hypothesis
testing, have found it important to Operationalize definitions and
concepts. Performance is studied and defined accordingly. In

describing experience, Operations that can be unequivocally perfOrmed

 

2D.B. Morrison and R.E. Henkel, The Significance Test Controversy,
(Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1970), p. xiv.

 

are used. A definite, concrete Operation is equated with the
empirical meaning of a concept. Only definitions in terms Of
Operations Of measurement or Of production and control should be
referred to as Operational definitions.3 In traditional sociology
the terms are seen as having meaning solely as definitions from which
.Operations enabling the determination of truth or falsity Of the
prOposition can be formulated.

"Operational" has referred to physical and verbal - again
empirical - behavior. And Operational concerns have been the
greatest in conventional sociology.

Kuhn's TST is a clear example Of Operational procedure and
will be discussed in Chapter Two. The 1.0. test is another example.
Here intelligence is operationally defined according to the person's

ability to answer specific questions directly.

6. positivism

 

s

The positivistic tradition provides the central core Of modern
sociology. A positivistic approach is equated with science.
Hypotheses must be formally laid down. The methodological approach
in testing must be reasonable in terms Of its logical and mathematical

treatment, while conclusions follow from measurement, comparison and

 

3?. Adler, "Operational Definitions in Sociology," The American
Journal Of Sociology, LII (March, 1947), p. H38.

 

testing. Positivism refers to a philosophical approach which views
the empirical method as important in learning about the real world.
Logic is accepted while introspective and intuitional attempts to
gain knowledge are rejected. The external world is the most reliable
one, and what we are, how we feel and think is determined by it.
Positivism values systematized, tested and rational clarity. Within
a positivistic framework, the meaning of a prOposition lies in its
method Of verification. Observation and data are considered more

important than theory and speculation.

In summarizing these six categories I would like to note their
structure. Starting from the concept Of axiomatic moving towards
positivism, we can see that each element leads to the next one. For
example, axioms point to deduction. That is, deductive methodology
is based on axioms. Positivism is based on the five previous items
and is really a general philOSOphical position stemming from them.
Axioms, on the other hand, seem to be analogous to cells of an
organism - they represent the basic most elementary building block Of
a conventional approach to sociology.

I have presented these six characteristics Of conventional
sociological endeavor in a way which suggests that they are distinct
and separate. I would like to emphasize, however, that I do not see
these six modes as separate and easily distinguishable. Rather, I
see them as overlapping waves of the same ocean. That is, they are

highlights Of a general tendency. This tendency is one which moves

toward a scientific disipline - meaning in general, that empirical
data are quantitatively and objectively studied. Actually these
categories are interconnected and all stem from a definition of what

is meaningful and valid sociological information.

10

Existential Sociology

 

I would like to pose an alternative, contrasting six traits to
those selected as exemplifing conventional sociology. This other
tendency is existential. I frankly find it more aesthetically

'pleasant. The six tools Of existential sociology are: inference,

 

induction, process, qualitative, humanism, and idealism.

1. inference

 

Existentially oriented sociological learning begins inferentially,
rather than axiomatically. Rather than starting from certain givens,
it begins with maybes. Cognitive and/or belief judgments are made.
Guesses are made with probability as their basis. Phenomena are
indicated and pointed out. The sources Of prior information are
carefully considered. Existential sociology has a moving, informal
foundation - it is laid with assumptions and loose‘implications.
Self-consciously, though, it is aware Of its shaky base, and cannot
claim absolute certainty. The most basic element Of an existential
orientation is one Of uncertainty. There is awareness Of the non-
necessary nature Of inferential truth.

Existential sociology is interested in the meanings by which
peOple define, sort and label their experience of the world. Meanings

are seen as arising from social interaction and being modified continually

through interpretive processes used by an individual in a social

ll
situation. Rather than axiomatic application Of established meanings,
individuals are viewed as using formative processes wherein meanings

are revised.

2. inductive

 

Existential sociology strives for inductive methodology. A
polar approach to deductive thinking is sought after. Rather than
forming general theories with which to look at specific cases,
induction involves studying particulars and then inferring general
conclusions. Induction is a method Of sensing the whole by learning
about the parts. It grasps at the universal by looking at restricted
elements. I am reminded here of an experience in undergraduate
school in an art class. I was taking a sculpture course and found
building with clay enjoyable. I decided to try my hand at stone
carving and got myself a beautiful piece Of'marble which was an Old,
replaced gravestone. But I could not get started. Instead of building
up, as with clay and plaster sculptures, my mind needed to reverse
processes and chip away at what was already mass in order to create.
I found I could not work easily in such a "subtractive" process.

I relate deduction to a reducing process: from a general theory,
what can we discover about Specific cases? On the other hand, with
induction we are building from particular studies to general theories
in an additive manner.

Induction considers the complexity Of phenomena and is aware

12
that many explanations can be Offered for any event. The
possibility of confirmed laws (from which we can deduce) in the

social sciences is questioned.

3. process

 

Instead of an emphasis on hypothesis testing, existential
sociology has a process orientation. Movement is emphasized.
Human interaction is seen as a continuously developing procedure.
Change is constantly recognized, not in a sharp start-stOp-start
fashion, as described by Mead as the "knife-edge-present," but
rather in a flowing gradual way. Hypothesis-testing involves
segregating variables and in a step-by-step method, testing
correlations between them. Process orientation looks at processes
of becoming rather than states Of being. Research scOpe is broadened,
since the unknown is not eliminated as "not there." Rather, uncovering
‘the unknown is a goal in existential sociology. Problems in studying
elusive phenomena are interesting to existential sociologists. They
‘may'look at why there is difficulty in studying such things (example,

the self).

13

u. qualitative

 

In Opposition to quantitative statistical importance, existential
sociology is interested in qualitative methodology. The method must
fit the phenomenon to be studied. Standards of excellence need not
involve quantitative measureability. Social Observation and case
studies are at times valid methodological, theoretical explanations
and plausible exercises. When concentrating on quantitative analysis
such things as intensity, degree, duration and extent can be learned
about. However, difference in kind is not looked at. Qualitative
methodology searches for characteristics and identifying elements Of
an event and.what makes it distinctive and peculiar. (See Appendix B)
A qualitative orientation struggles to understand, and not simply know
about,a phenomenon. Value judgments are seen as ultimately unavoidable
and value commitments may be encouraged. Experiential rather than
measureable aspects of social life are captured with qualitative
methodology, (participant Observation, Open—ended interviews, etc.).

A qualitative perspective even within scientific methodology
realizes not only the importance Of quantitative procedures, but also
Of premises, problems, etc., as aspects Of scientific inquiry.

C

5 . humanism

 

Webster's dictionary defines humanism as "a doctrine, attitude, or

way Of life centered on human interests or values; especially: a

1n

philosoPhy that asserts the dignity and worth of man and his capacity
for self-realization through reason and that often rejects super-
naturalism."u Existential sociology promotes a humanistic stance in
describing human behavior.

Man is not seen only in terms of behavioristic and mechanical
terms. Intentions and meanings take on importance in the recognition
of man as interpretive. He is seen to respond even to his "self"
by interpreting the role of the other. His self-definition is
reflective and relational. He is not simply a response to the environ-
ment, but rather must construct, guide, and take responsibility for
his actions. This interpretative view of man is one which is respect-‘

. ful of man's dignity.

6. idealistic

 

And lastly, this alternative follows an idealistic rather than
a positivistic tradition. Man is seen as a symbolic creature trying
to make sense of his world. This alternative sees the problem of
knowledge as a problem of self-consciousness. Reality is known through
our senses and immediate experiences. Ideas are emphasized as shaping
reality. Idealism validates subjectivism and values imagination.

Introspection and intuition are recognized as actually part of

 

”15th Edition, 1965.

15

the scientific process, not only initially, but actually throughout

the process.

Again, I would like to point out that these six characteristics
of existential sociology are not the only six; nor need they all
be used in every example of existential sociology. Also again, I
do not view these characteristics as clear-cut and separate as
reflected by the way I present them. They are presented in this
way in order to make comparison between conventional and existential
sociology possible.

There is a loose, metaphorical connection between the enumerated
qualities of existential sociology. As seems apprOpriate to the
overall quality of the existential approach, these six "tools" seem
to work together rhythmically, but not in a repetitive fashion. The
characteristics are not rigid but rather flow along in some general -
although hard to generalize- way. No enumerated characteristic seems

encompassing of the next or previous one._

In the next chapter I will look at studies where these two

separate models have been used.

CHAPTER II
THE ALTERNATIVES COMPARED

In this chapter, I will compare the tow typified forms of
sociology - conventional and existential - outlined in chapter
one. I have chosen to contrast several studies which use the
alternatives. In the long run. the comparison should show how
much the understanding of the social situation is based on the
approach taken of the study. In this way I would like to stress
the importance of the choice of the alternatives.

I have chosen four examples of sociological approaches. Two
I use as examples of conventional sociology. two of existential
sociology: all four examples are within; the area of social psychology.
all four deal with the topic of the self concept. and all four use a
symbolic interaction perspective - makinga.comparison along a
conventional-esixtential continuum clearer. I

In the first part of this chapter I will simply critique the
four examples - discussing the main points of the authors. In the
next section I will pinpoint and compare qualities of the conventional
and existential model - depending on which one was used in these

studies. In concluding the chapter I will discuss the overall gernrsl

17

studies. ‘In concluding the chapter I will discuss the overall general
perspective provided by each. In this last section, I will also make

direct comparisons between the articles.

Conventions; £w;roech

«
b
#

 

1. John N. Kinch, ”A Formeliscd Theory of the Self—Con set", The
nmeri Sn Journal of Sociolo'j LI'JIII (J1nua1m 1963 , pp. 431-

 

-. WW

14.20.

Problem:

In this art1c_e hinch is dcvelo;ing a formal theory' of th

self concept. He .e1 3105 self conce fl: as "that erggiizsticn

 

 

flinch dcvel 95 about the self concept is: “tne in;.1v Ltuzl' s
conception of himself emerges from social i1tcraction and, in turn,
guides or iniiuences the eehavior of th1t indivitual. (1 131)

as a basis for t11is t11eo1y

Kinch evalu1te Lis own e1m:.lized the 00:7 in terns of its

es as compared to_;ess svstenstic "nncecues

(\r‘ '5' " " ("1 1-9‘.‘ .,:
vu 1.4/11" b.4541. ..‘-JL.1L'u-c-.

1n seeioiogy. in dis Vien, iormni tnecry is econ01i011 1n °u31"niz j;

 

research finding. Through ;e u0c111, for exempwe, one can support

'- v i, -- ~-.- - '3. J'- -- -q LIA .‘u 'a A. a. r J. ,— 1 IL -- fi . I!
111811; LQI‘G 1'30 10311113115 Ullul’l b-1C 1111.4va c.CUU.<...'..L ' uCStO-.. I‘Ol..ta-1.lzeb.

 

 

' A - fi-fi .AI- R -- P 4 IN (5—3: A. 1 q 3‘, '— ‘r— 74-; .
tneor; also nus . eir1nt1 1n necu;1M1; c1n; 3105 do “neiieege on t}1e

 

F”
C)
C1-
LJ.
' J
5—)
0
cf-
3.:
P
.4
L?
Cl
cf;
(3
O
y.
0—!
f“
('7
Fr
l.)-
f
H
C"
! I
Q
,3
U)
1’
‘;5
{f
9
O
H
“a
t"
O
{‘3
'r
La
0
(0
[1:
cf.
*4
O
p a
.4
(.0

subject . SJ

a - .,,.,..:.. n 1- u... rm . a .. .. . 1-1 1. s
are mine clear Jitn 1034. 1101 tnee1f. ine~eioie tne preo_en 01

O

proving by definition is c1im1natca. Tne c ndition where the theory

is exnecteC ‘

O
'0
£“'
:\
5“
'3
o
9
.5
C)
‘J
r

o
'3
{3

~- 4 " . 'ritn t-1e aj'vrocch Elmer-1 "s new

fl

. 1 -- .‘ ' fl’fl“ ' r ~'\ ‘2 ,‘a J- - ' .1 'r .
Kincn :Oints out tk1.t 1e1n1-izc1 tm1 r b11505 gaps in mhba J1 u UJC

use of inference, an; in general, shes communication es sierv

Because of these advantages, Kinch views a svstemstic approach

 

(as used within his article) as more valuable than the more informai
approach used by other sociologists. Jith a systematic angrosch,

information is cumulative, testable, :arsino:;1ious and easy to

 

 

measure. Cn the other hand, an informal approach gathers diffuse

anu con11l v izformation which is t'fficult

1

0 test and measure. In

('3‘

the positivistic traeition, flinch sees the ability to test and
measure a theory as a prerequisite for valuable m-1te“ 31, and an inability

as tl1eO1eticnl weakness.

Kinch derive several basic onenesitions frOH his general theor

1. The in.1"'l‘al's self concept 5 eases on his perception of

L7. 76-- q.'."—.,,,.. A ,n .
1 . ‘ .. 1 a 7:C 1 .
U1-C .I (.ku' ‘J LI--L§ Q Q“; \J l VL) ...‘.~_L&'

m, 4-0.: " . . ’ ‘— - _‘ -O r- ‘ c- - — — ' -n ,. 4- .‘q ’10!‘ . —
2. .nn11n11711uu1'ssel1 cones t nuneu_ons to u see 115 0e91¢1or-
" {'11 ° .. a A. ' J." ' Y . .- 1 — J.‘ - J. p
2. 11s 1n11, .uan's 1e~ce1eion o1 L33 :es‘euses of others so.11us
.V o P.- -'- ‘1 ‘ ‘1 . a - L r\- ' .p - ’4’:
hin "Eilecus tne ietuu1 resvo1ses 01 Others eoJ.rus him. (1. use)

m‘ y, a A“ ‘ J‘ - r‘ _: n‘ _ r~ . _ . o 4-1, ._-A ‘r_ ¢_|_ o r .4
1.1011 LiHCfl Ollb..-3.'.1..:b 1,113 ~ft.I‘18-iJ,..cS CC1‘IL'-L.LTICLL 3.11 (“10 :10 .‘OSlulQnS.

 

“ "‘4 1 ‘ '. .‘ ’1'. ’\- “1 ’a 'r A," ' I ".1 F ‘1 ‘4 ’x' . ‘ IN 6 1‘. t‘ ’— flf‘
mess a1e: the 111;.1r1-1 111's 51,11 cones 1t, 11.1.0 _.,e1ce_,tion vi the rescues

 

'5 ‘ ‘ . ‘\ ‘ ‘7" ‘ “ Q's Q ’ f. h ‘ .- J— . x ‘ . -: a
31 ooh uO”1: s LlJ 11" his oe1-11er (j Awé). he COQULJU‘S 11 us1ng
.' A -‘ V" . -— v i .-" . " .- c— r-‘ -‘ V E: ‘ I, , - J- ‘ I“ ' n-_ u a!- ’-
C3; -.U.C 'ul C 1:0 1; .10» 1.01.0; r a412, C 1. €111. v” S ufll" e more Z‘OS uUllees l “O [1 D118
u‘LAAA _‘ ". -
.- _' .. 4.' m1... 1.: .r-.-. 1 ° 11 - , 11- 1 .1.
I‘JJ'JI" 7 ufll‘CC - 1.11.13. {"3 PEG $4.111. .108 1118 11-190 ‘J: "Lane 331311311 I’CS 1011505

01 others to the indiviuuul will be1‘ no Q 11t in eeee1n1n1ng hOE. the

w!» .‘c: '-—. «' s‘ I g .1 q 341 -\ ‘fi-ar (—f‘.‘ n. ' ‘N‘: A an fi J- . ‘ 0.: - - a? f‘ H“. -I n 1 ”‘-
‘ v v 1 ' -. s "1 ,‘u. - . , .1' 1‘ . ~- -3 .-- ,, '. ,' '7 '_ -
——L -1..— 'l'_... L-.— nI....—’_-'.. .16.. Gil-I- U V -..—A:ILJ‘J J. 7 U-.'.._ :v.’ Vb . VlC—l o‘—”-—_ “¢_"le-_c"\/

his self—conception which, in turn, will guid.e his behavior " (3. L82)
Hinch provides a story inv 0-0 313 se_f conceat WI 4158. This heips
ex-mplify phenomena with nhic en the theory is conce; led. He then

deveEOps oeeratiensl definitions of his v: mib ies. He lCC??”1SGS the
vsriebl es in orlel to create postulates or inferred relationships.

7-" ‘ .3-.. ' r. 1 .m .‘ .0 .,. .°.z-.!- ° 4 .L" 1 -
nincn's stun, is e iecr en;.5ie 0; 4 sitifistic metnecoiogg.

 

The V““i&b;CS to be measured are real, formal and stable over time.

L-.

Q

v o . _ _1 _ -3 _!__‘, -_,.'-...' V .‘ fl- [’1 V“ \ . :_“_0 r1 _.' -‘_ . . a
he is concerned. :Iitn -., L: men: ‘inJ. the. the can; 2.0.... 1.0;...“1, filth

M

 

~ h m ,7 n * 2-2.-- _._ r n:— - .L -9 1. Ln, 2': 1,. ' .2. . .,. J.
10810.1; 9.; 'xL ' CC.U.C b4.'.’ ' 0119‘; .. 10:). U 0.1. .L‘lr 7O UL-CSCS ~ $3.4.1’1CL; 18 4.511131 CSuCe;
in svst*""i'i;~ t“ “H' on into“:.1:t'i01 o t“2 "“7” "iich ie

”I; C; Lnb—u ‘LJ U..-vu U --. .~ _ a. 1-1.Lv UV--.L a cs4; -4.

., ,' r - .7- ...,.'.° 7“, 3.: o *n -'.,., '~ . ,...'.' .
concernei :ith i SJSUCJdulC coi_ectien Ol cite, stibie getterns of

behavior reflecting fixei attitudes, and deduced, formal, precise,

'3 . . n". '9 — ~ r - ..
LOSlchgdr C... Q): tho-0127- .-

.' ~ ”‘5 -‘ ,‘ I“ ~ -- ’_ - - ' . A-fl PM.- ---'~.- :— -v f“ -‘ C" -=. - ,. -
neuiiei Lia‘scL :is;1 s oi ctivcntieniu socioio,»

_.‘A

In this article, IinC1 is conce;ned with many of the traits eonnon

to Uh‘t I h've e11ume rate ‘ as those of conventional sociology. It

w—n

'sies “ fon'“‘izei theory of the self con ego which is coq.cnt_enI;;J

n ._ a u 1‘_ "1‘ J.‘ ‘n __.o r _- .r-‘ _ o ‘ "L . 1... J. ‘ o \F -_‘ ‘
, elo ch throuon use use oi anions, cc action ans n,;oLHCSis tea in;.

f“ > L“, ‘4 ' F‘.’ ‘l‘I'MT 5“ ' ‘K Q‘-
njflOuhUSGS sic crchtcn cone fining b'

whicl serve to o CroEiORC-lZ definitions are used. And Ln

“ “STD _)_-CS

scco;€;nce with the positiVLstic tza x.it uiOH, be ic is uahe as a valuable

method for explaining enviri 5.1 t'_*utl s.

3

21

Firs , we sc1~uti1izc tlze theory to search out
what seem to be its bcsic 3‘ positions and make
these postulctes ex1? icit;- secon-, the VCriablcs

r conce msare11cac1” c7.Cnd “-mn1;q tciine1,
third, allm1ter1~eleu1011511ivs bOtZICQn t11e VCIioflo
that can be cerivei fro 1 the bC.si postulates are
considered— Jc 3111 use those rules of 105ic which
are part of 031iner; lan5ucg erathor th;T 11 the rules
of matheLatiCS- 1inT.lly, alter the lorr.1a;ized theory
has been exp1 catei, we can consider those conditions
under which each 01 the basic postuietcs will be
expec ed to holim (p; 181)

Of our cnumcrcte; qualities, jarticular use 15 made here of

f3

axioms, defiuctiv- methodolo5j an; a positivistic ppr oach.

 

Conventional Sociology (contirued)
2. IIcuzom. II. Kuhn and Thomas S

Investigation of Bel.-
Review, 1:1»: (Feb-

Prob on

"An Exp Jical Inves

of conventions; sociology.

this

in articl e in being

 

th30u311 em‘iri sl res e“ rch. They 51*e conce; 10d with
tests ”or investigating an Lu.l\_g c.1's attitude toward h
‘ ' "I A 3' - 'I‘ ’l "G "‘ h ' 1‘ 'f . 1 0‘ ~ " '3‘ .
Toe; c.ecsc a test u_ CCti; Mince t se_f—M.t

Q
fir\

 

LLtitupPP”
.. -_ " , . ,— r 7—
’uLI'J ’ .L 1’ C3541) , “DP 0' (K;- |’ 0 o

gtfion ofS

Allin

5 . .A. JL filo-b:-
LacriCZH Sociol o g icnl

,
CH. C‘.

h

(J.

7151, "" In Empirical

 

able to identify

..
r.
1.

-L'zl .--

I

EEOC?

ure self-at

1m

" is another 6

S_.C

a. 69) would oe nec

—
C

w'nr‘l .
d-CJ.

are interested
titudes

constructing

.r‘
.Lo

ltUL.CS rctller

ess:¢r'

“5*

1 ‘ ' 1 _ . '- ‘ . _ '1 A‘ o
tnen one ”were ”If-{1" c...-:.1.s 0.1. 4.11. ewe-nee ' (

m’} "" “‘1'; ‘ '7“. 3‘11 3' "‘fu ‘: -. . "' -LV‘A . -" 4‘63- "‘ ‘ .’I
1;. u: g 9 C011 8.1; 0-. .._b-. 1:9 fL.:..1.'_ *Ld 01 u-.UlI‘ UCQU A 041*...—
fiq o q J-w' o J_‘ :1 f__ J. 1‘! .L '_ .: I 1 1"“ 7
'c..i.l£L-L.uu-' 15 .10 use 0. ..0 .LC CO CO... cc p.10 test at... t; e to.
" d’i‘ "' t .P’L'fif- ,. H-v-‘u r- .z.‘..... ‘-°'\C‘ 17-56 ‘F‘ 4‘1”. “e“tfl. ‘ "
0;»..le Coo * '-~., I. -. CC. A .t_.:_I1Uu..c, J. buL..-LIQ 6.. “one quu ....€CLL. J.

v .. ‘1. JAN .L .L °. .. -."~., -. 1*. -
ti‘lOSC .L‘CS‘LLUS OJ. 0 U-1'J.: uCSuS 8.....(‘C‘ZZC -' {93:18 0-1 SJ-.JZ..1.C.I‘ ‘DI'OJiCfilS.
I‘m-L '1 --"r\-s (\rwr
.;L U-.O~ .v.-\.a‘ . '

J- .341:
7.. . q a; ‘ ... 7‘1... >- hi . . -I- r- - J‘ .\ 7‘ J- .2. :- H
“mm {JILL l.C."g..L"u.Lc.'1(.. -CJ'ZLSC C. mfvfltf S c.tC..IGIluS UeSUo J.

“J- v. r\ — .L'- J-
SUL. be..1Cl'lu are 138': )015' u u
. -1. --- .: .'.-
t0 II..L.€ .L1CLa;-. uuo Ull 'i JSI‘SLUU',‘
’3'1 "at: J‘r“ P “~ . " 5" “a "In
11kt...“ uvu U'J Cb * L "CL/C Coupe“; - V
H" .. - . t 3- - n J a - -- ' , 2.
L10 ICC. ~1qu d4. U;-v “ 51-0

he gusstic: ”who am
stuicnts. The stud
c ~f‘1'w‘f o
n.)- V‘LL' Q .

3&1 I?” t re: t",- rat's-37‘

' *8

1 u o . a

sorted throu3h context analysis. 1133*r were cat03orizeo into one

d

H. q

f two general c1assiiications: consensual and subconsensuai.

O

|.Jo
ca

Consensual statements ”reier to groups ani classes whose _1m

and conditions of membership are matters of common :nozrledg e," (p. 69)
(e:an_31 e — stuient)3 They are often statelentc referrin3

to Status and/or class 31d refer in 3‘1er31 to self—identifi ation
1- 3 .. - r. . .. ,... 1.,,-!-.: :.' ,_ ' .,
Jitn some seeial sdsteu. inc statisticul size (mv ieble) of tm

Kuhn and McPsrtLand a1l t110 "locus".

-1
m
d‘

consensual variable is :1
01 the other hand, a subconsensual stetemezt is one which
"refers to grougs, c-_:s sos, attrioutes, traits, or Clle otm matters
which would reeque Lfbe"‘”€t .tion bJ the respondent o be precise

or to olacc him relative to other peoyle" (p. 69) (for example —
hee3r). Subconsensua‘ statencres have ”no positio 331 reference or
are ooscurea with unclear moeifie rs." (p. (9 )

C
no ,

r- ‘ 5‘1 .-- ‘ 1 ‘p J- o A. .: ‘
1:11.: L1 931C. ;.C:)-;..’ v.’.‘.... u. 400.; {It ‘.Lr J: -8.u-.0118 L1 .41 .LJ»..~..L.J-».-.LL.~_ S 53...

H.
I

1 1 {.11 ‘ .1 '3

1.1.4“; .-,.. , -,,.‘:,- . .3. 1,- -- ,1-.. . - , .' J.
uttituaes accoiu_33 to "inoun 3ioujs." lue exau3,ic se; in b

A ' . o ;:no - .i:,- m 3‘ ' "on:3°flA' 3 0-1: L - ~q
rti 1e 18 one Or uiiierenuia; 'CulSlOUS uiii1iation. udJJeCpS Jose

q

III- _u‘-‘_ R up IQ ‘ —.-1-;—..-. v‘ I. a V.“ 1 1"}
o.rec»1J uSLGm for tn»ir reui3ieus menoerSni .

fl. ‘I .
. '1: - - «we
.1' 4.1.1:--.1-‘ ' u

m.“

Results of tl3et est she: that the average rank of consensus;

res enses su3e rc-de sueconsensual ores — mu _3ortin3 the hyéethe si

[m

a r‘ "“5 -, ' '. - 0"" "' :- —.' IN." I‘ \
that "consensu111. su3301 e; se1i—uut1tuues are t t. e to of
9 c Q _‘ ‘4‘ hr- .,. .L L- -
the 5.1 “ranch . oi se--_- 3w tug..-:; -

—- v»- u...-

-- .- -0. fl - n, v . Q — - ~- ~\ 3‘: z ‘ .- w 1‘3. J, p “ ‘1 - ¢ ' A
more "iirect1r sec. xJ c-1cnc3et' (3. .,) e_enents Or an inc_31at1i o

24

nere

Q

alience

Q...

t

self—-

-
L._'..

ietion

rentistic"

on

n.

'1

V

1.311113

tements
tt

ste
-ef-O.

n

l C

n'?
(A...
.1
‘1‘. ‘3V’fx: t
-Ln COI&\/v11

nr‘ ‘ --"
k—
". V
LA
10115

t.)

in 50
t

'.‘
L-
3'»

U
#3

.1.
U3

"18011511

4L
0

-
1GP.
.LV

C‘ ’\.-"OA"
uC'u; v

‘lel’l
C

L..-

.‘13 CO
'2‘
J- -',
U4.

5

V

.LOC'LIS

Ias t

It '
ot as

lav-w (31"

4-D- .VJ.

3-3.
.l‘

n
L».

:1-
‘vre

"CELJJICS

.
o-nv‘
-ugd
-‘ ,.I
I

11
-fi-
ALL.

0
9

n

I

CC
5

o
"3
.L

~d-1
.JVJ. S
. ‘-'1("
JV; 5.) -'

fl
1'3
**-‘¢

0
Q
1.
-.
l
L.
Q
1

a \- 5——

33C
'3:
' ..‘-C
..
I
3.1"
U
$302.;

0‘

S

(-4
-

eersen's

10 ally
l)

;1ti
eu3

'.
'51
4. 1
U-

‘ O.

..V
[1:1

r-‘n

U-

{“7"

u)‘

if

0
S

J.

the re
es,

n

ns,

8
abl
r"? 0

io

iou

1c11

ri
i31
'3
13ious

l

O
‘1 r»
.._...U
C

.1
.J.
.,

f0 .

refe
i.e.,
: I"

vs
rel
re
re1

‘

r11
l;

.o~:s.

(“-1
(.J"

c _ -~ 0 ”"01
c; reiiQious

n UCJOTl

'HL.
54.5.U

3’1

F
\

J- 1
U41

3 , . .1.
'..‘...1.C-1u

cu

~
I v

cu

'10..
.. \I

12] O

is

".08.

\

1131.1

Jen
Ltt

r.

113.; '“ .10'.1~

L.)

p

-‘ '1A71
-‘ v...
A." 4"
CgL—l-

.,
J.

1

t 'V
fl.
L6-

”D $‘

f

CC 110‘

_
-

"I
-ient s

..
'~-.1 .
v.5 ‘... v;
" l

yk-

S

.n
.L

wan
cu V
. A
1e5- .
_I
.. -.
”“193

10
1.1

t.

.L
L-UU....U

C'C‘

'-

Q I
,. .. e. -
a-
)fi" '
I bi...
‘ V‘ "

C‘LLTS

V"

l

I
9, '_I ,.
I .
_.UU.~U'\'§\..

8.")
. c-
9.5
l
,_ ..

.. L41 C '.

.‘
I

. F.

.1.

t“

"2011'
.o

t

U
U

'~~

n

v

.‘ f 5‘.

uh,
J'W'J‘.
LA
0

.10 o
C
k)

7‘

'9; LAC;

.C
r. N
1.1
r\ r.-
\J
P1
Uv‘t
‘I h‘
‘1
C.

q-..

u o

0“.

‘ "3“ '1

s.) KJ

w

.-
q

.L
L1,.»

.0—

J: - ‘-.

r“- ‘C‘ '\..

cf}.
r:~,r
by, V
\
‘\l.._

.en
_\.I
o u...
(‘A
QKJC
'l
60113;};sz

,r
0"...“

LAC
Vv
", ,_

.33.

Q“,

:3

o a
F31

UV;

‘Q.
o
.
-——-
-

am A .3

.f‘
l
,- .
k.— x.
o
.1
..-.....v;-
.
”I
.I ,.
.....

44—— “...‘44. o-“-

O
kt»-u‘ “A
V

'x

e seen 03 nu.
in see

b

‘1

- 3.1.1.11
'1 S

I
. \.‘A-- .- ¢--.
' U.«~J
o-
g

V

3-5
8 ‘DO 83.1310

U u”.
‘4
O

-4.
.Lu
A 'L :‘r‘. P.
\- U v-.5V'
f1
EOLO
-

'!

SE

 

the

1«
$$

es sharply bv less socially enclaore; identifications? Kuhn and

1

thctrt lend take a very sociological View, the 1, in showing now

q

social structure :.n; groua interaction define the self.

A. 1.0 ,w 1“,“ .1. -,..' 4.: -,. . ,1 ' . .
AOTILCQ Ciisectecisuicso 00:1 entionil Seeiolosf

q

As is clearly state; in the title, t1

concerned Iith t

 

0 interested in e tCSth;C framewonk fen e person's self attitudes.

*1?

Their test 15 bases on losic and its validity is discusses in

oetwoc en the test and the h" othesi

(.1.
(D
j
Ca
0
O
H)

A
[.1

V
FL
'0
0
C;
B

(D
O
C::
|
O
0-)

 

and (2) the “elation of tie “es fits as com1crcd with results of

the objective nature

similar tests. These tests supooseslv refleCt
of their stuiy. Ihile witi flinch a stul; of the self concept mcie
extensive use of axioms and deduction, .Iith Kuhn ans Kc-srtlc nd we

,\ -.: - :1 - .. -. ,1 "I . 1“
"c tifn oi owe: tions.iis i h5£0uuCS€S

 

 

' . ‘ n- 'L J- '. “ H15 '- A J- ’- \ '- -w r . — . - - r1 " n
union use UBSUCuo Lesliest res,onses en e-guest103neire ere

consi;.e1e; meaning; ul iniiCCUlo ns 0. the self concevt. 1hese
TCSponses fulfill the Operational c1:lit* deSired in conventional

. 1 ‘-¢- m1s v! 5‘ . . 1‘ - (‘7 - 3‘1 .-\‘ V . ~fl r‘ J- ' -‘ f“ A rm. 4" - -
seeieiogg ined use seen us roll feiHoCElonS 0; e tieuues gnu oenarior oi

Q v.1. I O

‘ . o r‘f I. r. —-- 1 '~.- . .‘. J.'
the TBSEOJeccsg iae LTULCiG 51 es one u-

is equetei with the respo nses to t11e TST. The hypotheses Kuhn ans

-

1's (1) c011sens u.0 l as)

‘I J

$7 -J.'1 .. .L .
uC PQFULCH; UGSU

O

ets of the self concept are more

.4

salient than subConsensuule _e.ents, (2) on a volume basis, persons: var‘

q

- .—.'-'Y_ '. ._.. .'." . --.. ,1‘ . ‘— _- ,1 D '
creeulg lfl tOSJS oi consonsu _ -_suse onsensvu_ e: c1cnus oi sef.f c1pc*_oi:1

and (3) this variation can be measured empirically. In this article critical
hypotheses are state; and tested for results. Laws of behivior are

looked for< Uith th ir concczn with cmpiricism, the authors emit

the importance of a positivistic stance.
e articles of Kinch,

Conventional socioLogy is exemplified in bot" th

"1. ...J~ ~
ana “nan ano ACPdfu_aflL~

if?

‘35:.-

 

27

‘7

existential Agproach

1. Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everzdaz Life
(Garden City, H.Y.: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1999].

Assumutions

1. One of the basic assumptions which Goffman makes is that life
is an information game In their face—to—face relations, peeple are

engaged in "reading" each other. These readings are made in order to establish

such things as reflection of self (checking one's own presentation)

 

definitions, cxuectationsL etc. Goffman gives us a view which
visualizes man as being very adept at watching and.inter3retbgg
cues which other individuals give and give off. Acquisition of
information about another individual is a common and essential part
of social interaction.

‘.

2. Goffman also views interactions as having a su vicious character.

U)

In gaining information about another non-verbal cues are particularly
important and noted by the actor. This stems from‘the actor's aua1eness
of the easiness of manipulating verba cues. In trying to size up
another, an actor watches for cues in non—verbal beha*ior, since in
being more difficult to manipulate, these may be more revealing.

Here Goffman distinguishes between expression "given” and expression

"given off." The former refers to symbols which are directly used

to convey informaticnywwhile the latter involve actions which an be

_. ___A-_

- —ETflflD--l 3A1

28

treated as symptomatic in that they are performed for reasons
other than the information conveyed in this way. Social
interaction is constructed with methods of "seeing" which cut

through suspicious expression given.

3. Goffman makes an assumption that, although man is suSpieieus,

he must act on inferences made. There is no way to really knew

I

F‘ f! N“?_ .a'fi‘ ‘AV

another in an encounter, and much interaction is based on trust.
Goffman gives us an example from H.I. Thomas: "I am, let us say,
your guest. You do not know, you cannot determine scientifically,
that I will not steal your money or your spoons. But inferentially
I will not, and inferentially you have me as a guest." (p. 3) In
a scientific manner, it could be said that we rely on statistical
probability here; however, no matter how high the probability,
counter possibilities are never completely ruled out. And so the
element of trust shakes hands with that of suSpicien in human
interaction. - ' --,

A. Goffman sees man as a symbolic creature. Because of this

assumption of his, intentions, inner subjectivity, meanings, etc.,

 

are important. They are 'mpertant to the individual in relating to

others, and they are important in studying relationships.

5. Geffman nertrays individuals as small men. he get a picture of man

as weak, frightened and vulnerable. He is busy trying to

maintain an acceptable impression - and this needs to be carefully
done. A performance is a fragile affair. Related to this is
Goffman's assumption that man is a victim. Social performances
are often attempts to deal with social institutions. Because
of social organization we are sometimes caught between standards
or ideals. For impression management, frequently violations of one
of the ideals takes place. Goffman "locates phony behavior not
within the actor but within the complex of social relationships

'7
containing the actor "’ flan is therefore a victim of the comalex
of his social relationships, in that at times he is forced to be
inauthentic because of role cenfligts and discrepancies.

—

Persnective

 

Geffman's perSpective of social life is one of theatrical
performances. The principles he applies to sociological study are
dramaturgical ones- He discusses dramaturgical terms such as

"frontstage"; "backs age" and "preps" in conceptualizing social life.

Goffman begins by discussing initial encounters of persons.

3

U)

Information about the other is immediately gra ped ~1d made use of

in order to define the situation. An attempt is made to measure

expectations.

 

7

R.P. Cuzzort, humanity CDL Dedern Sociological Thought, (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Jinston, Inc., 19o9), p- 15o.

T lira—w [:9

3—157-
. _£

30

It is recognized by Goffman that much crucial information
lies outside of the time and place of the interaction. Also,
crucial information may be concea“ed. Therefore, there is a
tremendous amount of inference by which we live in our everyday
interactions with other peOple. For example, we do not know,

and cannot determine scientifically, what actions another person

rpm l- w 5.3!!

will take, but rather we must infer meanings and expected
.behavior for the individual.
Every actor has interest in controlling the conduct of others
by influencing the definition of the situation. An actor is said
to effectively influence the definition of a situation insofar as
others act upon the particular impression the actor has given.
A definition of a situation is dependent on an individual's projection
of it, and the other's reSponse to it.
'Goffman points out that it is easier to make choices as to the
line of treatment at the beginning of an encounter than, trying
to make alterations after the interaction has begun. Therefore the initial
definition tends to ca ry a plan for the activity which is to follow.
Goffme' stresses this as an "action point of view” (3. 13) and believes
this to set up a moral character of the projected definitions. There
are two ends of this moral character. 1. An individual's performance
should indicate that he is what he claims to be and 2. An
individual has a right to expect that others will treat him apprepriately

in respect to the social haracteristics given and given off.

31

Defensive and protective war ctices are techniques
used to safeguard an impression fostered by an individual.
Maintenance of expressive behavior is necessary. Contradictions
to the impression are avoided since they may bring the interaction
to an end. Jokes and games are ways of preventing disruption of
projected definition. Role discrepancy is uncomfortable.

Generally, Goffman is dealing with the ways in which people
sustain desired impressions, and is concerned with the participant's
dramaturgical problems of presentation of self. He is concerned
with how we present our idea-of-the—self to others in everyday
life. He uses a eraaatureic l frameJork in trying to understand

life—in—society.

I

q

For an exan;_‘ of Go ffm anian analysis, I will use that of an

actor as coclita waitress. ' m-"
n4-

- P-n fl-J“ :"» n n ,‘ rt...‘ '-n.-L "
I am working part- lae as a cocltail naitres at Laoclgr's

Teaknood Lounge. The Lounge is my settin The frontstage region

 

is carpeted, plush and dimly lit — giving it aITMkrn.c:atzosahere

1

The backstahe resion consists of the :itchen, cooler room for beer
stock, and several backroems. Only employees are allowed in the
e region. In this case they are the performers while the

1 I
bacnSta

f—
U

 

32

customers are the audience. In the backstage region the empl yees
will dr07 their Laitressing front ( a smile becomes a disgusted look
because of a spilled beer).

I have several 7r07s — the most important being my uniform.

 

This prep is essential to im7 7ression nannee7cnt and era Inatic

A

 

 

realiz ation. In training, I were a regular dress and found the 5
customers didn't accept my performance. by cue to this was L

ex7ressioz7 riven - in this cas e ti7s not given. Tr is was partially

 

due to my in xperience but that seemed to be sufficiently covered
when my uniform covering came in.

A waitressinc front consists of a friendly professional

0

 

nmnner. The waitress is always pleasant to the customer} Sometimes

this is an example of cvniccl behavior, as there are some very

 

obnoxious customers She moves quickly. Iaintenance of expressive

control is important. Ihcn a waitress stumbles or spills a drink,

she deal with her accident alth the least noticeable behavior possible
The boss is a aistinct member 01 the audience. Uhen he is

“round t.7e ”“"b“ sses' service gets even better. Occasionally the

boss calls a meeting all ells angrily at the waitresses — setting

up a team structure- ’ ter the boss leaves, there is a renewed

feeling of unity — not in reaponse to helping him out as requested —

but as a response to being yelled at.

1"

The boss is concerned with tn .mtre sing service because his

business is making money. The waitress m: y be interested in delivering

m”)

‘ .5! “ fir~v~ "r‘ A Le:-c\ ‘ n- .'
goon service for the sale reaSon (bile). aoIever, she mar oe more

concerned with her role as a woman an; gettino dates. Sole

Q

 

discre7ancy may occur here if a prospective dater isn't drinking

 

enough and claims poverty. The waitress may decide not to fulfill the
xpectation of drink—pushing in order not to push the fellow

out of17er setting.
This example is brief and therefore limited in assessing all
of the intricacies of Goffman's work, but I think it is an axe pie

1

which reflects his form of an Q'sis.

. . ' a n. -. ’7.-.‘ I .L 1 .3 ‘1 ,.-
A77lioa h._ a te'vce es of iniseeneia l Sociel gr

Goffman's work is difficm t to summer a . The style and ergoniz
of the book are hard to capture in any outlineable form. This style
reflects the dvnzmic nature of human interaction - it is chanains

in a flouinr form. Presentation of Self in Bvervcav Life seems to

0

have little logical chapter order. hay any'chapter appears where
it does is an unanswered question. The style of the book seems to

refle t the theoretical conceptions .rhich made up the content of

Ft
6
(J
O
O
r 7
O
H
C
C
O
.5
U)
J
*‘J
(D
M
a
g.)
C"
I 3
(+-
1...]
8
O
H)
(D
O
I 1
Ft
(.1
:1
U)
cf-

as actors scan actions
his seems in line with 3em7 in's idea that research

m of symbolic interaction: "research math

<;
(J
(0
rJ
"5
(D
m
H)
O
"S

are not sterile atheoretical tools. Instead, they are finbolicall
laden lines of action that represent one or another of h mjo orms

of interaction the sociole; ist carries on as he moves from theory to

ation

__L

iiaimw um"!

 

.4

31+

reality. All r search is a form of symbolic interaction."8 In
Goffm n1 not only is the research method connected to the theoretical concerns,
but even the presen ation of the "finaings" reflect them.
Goffman discusses the self in terms of presentation. He
existentiallya froa hes studying self presentation in that

points out the importance of inference in everyday life. Uncertainty

 

.‘I I

of perception of performance and unaredictahiiity of performance

 

are centrd to Goffman' s dramaturgical discussion of self. Induction
is procedurally use; in accor; lance with the existential idea that
meanings are arising ana chan3 L13 t21rou3h social interaction. He
looks at 33.rticu.-:r situations and then makes general theories based
on them. Confirmed laIs are not looked for. Goffnan has a orocess
orientatioz. He describes the movement in human interaction - which

u.
I

is continuously deveLOpin3. Goffn511's me thoiology is a; 3er
c.escriptive anle;rsis and he searches for the distinguishin3 Chara eristics
of op es. Goffnen is humanistic in reco gaining the interiretative
mecha1isms of human behavior I per eive mySe“ if by interpreting

my perfori1ance through your res_:om1 e to it. The concepts of self

and other are interconnected. The self is critical in interpreting t1 e other.
All in all, the ni1; is an essential consideration throu3hout

Goffman's work; tlerefore, it takes on ifioa.

 

8

Terran K. Derzin "T11e netho lo103ics of S'm1bolic Interaction:
S

 

 

’ u
’1» n-n .. J ' ”1, '3 r ‘ 'v
A CI‘ibiC;L- - l C (LC. I 04. 4.659.“; (3-1 13C; 71‘ _U.€S .111 ‘QCl..... .L SJ'CIIC'lrJL.’
'- l‘ —.A J- - A J- -. V v u ' ~ - ;"‘ 1' ' I-J "' t ....I’. o" -:A ' 1‘
TIYCO‘U‘J I 1‘s“; L 30; ac ’Ll uc‘f".c..u‘l""1f K" D ’ C“C::O‘°d7 P 7 E; Uv‘ilb LJ.1CL ..L.I J93 It 0
4‘4— ~ h ."-'n.‘--‘..7.‘..' "‘r L ,l 4 ,r»~‘ l_lf\
1;.1-14'011; --\;1 .-;.S\; .: sub... \J.. UV-._.Q_J3 - JJ_._S--L1Q, .LC: ‘/ V’), J (“J—IA) .

 

characteristics Goffman's work most sharply uses are those of inference,

n:ocess orientation, and Qualitative methodology using a humanistic -

é

 

H
g

(D
f

I.

I.

C

<-

l c
0
OJ
f;
U)
(D
Q
,3)
(D
U)
U)
C)

11f is seen as a problem of self—consciousness

from other's impression of one's performance; In wanting

to cast particular imjrossicns we choose unprepriate articulation and actions.
In this guidance of action we are making choices in a humanistic framework
and in our nerceéti:g of our impression management we are idealistically

defining and eval sting the situation:

36

Enistential Sociology (continued)

 

SJ

1 Penguin Books,

6')
F4
.3

2. 3.3. Laing, The bivifie ‘ .Self (Kiddiesex, Ens
Ltd , 1959 .

 

f

Fundamental Concertc

 

..‘ ' “ -,. 1 ..-.. ° ,1. -m‘ .- .,. ' it: v 1- -
naing is a :sgcn otlor.gist JQOSC miin JUJQCSC in unis oooi 18

to ”make madness and the process of going mad, comprehensible" (p. 9).

"r‘
H

is unhappy Hitl tlw CHO¢d3i""“C ViGU of macness.

His dissatisfaction with UDS cl mo Jyticai approaches to

5 ‘

‘ J r} v n: - . ”\f‘f" V'“‘fl"‘~ fir ‘L - '9 - 4-
Hilael‘SuCngiflu .. .iJleSS lS sac-“:06. 011 56%: oi J.:.-C 00.35. ine .LlPSU Of

these is a conception and friority foot . He sees man's existence,

his being-in—the—m orl.;, as a crucial cenceyt to begin with in studying

Q

schizophrenia;

Unless we begin with the concept of man in relation
to othe men an; from the beginning 'in! a JOTlC, inn
unless we roaLize that man aces not exist xi'heut
'his' worlt‘_ nor can his norl; exist nitho "

a V

are conce11c to start our stufy Oi scai
sc;1"'o;n"e11:7.c _‘-CO“.:.C wit: a veroa; one o
-. splittin3 tin.t :2.‘ i t
of the schi so

:Jod

O
m
("P
3
f w
0
c}-
a
f .
[.13
9
> 1
p.
U)
H
(D
6
F.
9
._)
a
F“
(-4.
:4
E.
b
0
ct
L
(D
5
U)
[3
i 3
i.
O
"3
‘(fll

underiencine oneseif in reiaciensnin‘mootner in one's world is the
existential conception reflecting totality — described by the words
"existence" and ”being—in—the—norli". The old ViOU of mat ess does

not begin its understanding with this conce~tiozal priority, Insteac,

-' - .' .n 1-- r -'- 0- ‘ —‘ - .— L‘ ,1!” .U .' :J-n
.Lt “OBS :..DSui"c.Cu ”3.71 out 4.2071 nis .."d--..£‘.elOflS naitfl Ce.1€Z‘S. It: _SO-- cos

 

3'?

the "mad" individual and thereby takes him out of context. It

neglects, for nam3_e, lookirg at the relationship between the

thera3ist and oatient bJ setting up distance between them instead.

This aistance set—up is the second way‘in which Lahng is

unhappJ Iith the ola View of madness. The dists.nce is aartiall J based

on language. The language developed in szchiatrJ keeps the patients

at a distance from their th— raiis . According to Laing one does

not saJ one thing and entirolJ mean another. There is a relationship
between what we saJ and nha we mean. Our language in other words shapes
our conceptualis tions. Tm erefore, distancing langue.ge creates distance.
This can onlJ peryetuate the patients feelings of splittage with his world.
Ining points out that the objection to technical pSJ hiatric language

q,

lies in the sp'ittage of nan characterizea by the Jords used (exa.ap ie -

id ere, su_oere go). There is a l fie: of language conceptualizing
a unitary whole.

thir€.eissati51action of La'1g's.zith the ole vie: lies

in its neglect of understanding the terSéective of the patient - a

 

neglect of the patient's context. For Laing there is a prerequisite
when .Iorki.g with psy hotics to orient oneself to the other' s scheme
of things. Instead of using our own frame of reference, it is

necessary to understzalic the other's netrorcs One cannot untcrst" a the

schisoyhrenic's exnerienco when seeing him as an object in one's own world.

 

38

unhappy with "thinsine" the )"tient - that is, viewing the other

H -‘—° .‘x Ln. " . -‘. -°. '7 .- ,-
as a thing are HOD a >erson. "n::r)~esseu in the lanéua

U)
U)
0
,3
E
t” J
U)
r

existential )heno: -zenol 05;, the other, a pe~son or

fl 0
.1

* 0M3 intentional acts'

CO"
993
p.
H.
:—.,
'43
(D
H
.0
._)
cf‘

as seen as .n organic n, is te

(p. 21) The intentional act rejers to the point of view taken.

he chooses one's point of View accore 13 to 21h at one is looming

for with ”he other. "Zach intentional act leads in its own direction
and yields its onn results." (p; 21) Laing's intention is to

vie2z ma n a a person, which necessitates avareness of his fears, desires,
etc. He wants to avoid aegersonalizin the patient. The schizoid
individual is one who alreaiy angeriences himseif as a non-person

(exan)l e — robot) and is not helge; with gorgetuation of these

- '. r .1. ~ T ..,... .' 2. ‘ ,..:. °:.:~ ,. , - ,m" A, :, ., :.
ieelings uue b0 tne tnelaglsu's celnniclons ana "eilcctiens of him.

 

 

A 70iflt lnxoitantly made with the aissatiSiactions mentioned

- - - ., :. . ° :4.. 4. ' ,. . “a: _ -»:. 1‘ “an; ~ -
and haVing a relationSnlg Jitn it, he LOCS net believe tn - m, sts shou_e
persuade the "ins; me" to accegt the t1eragist's point of view

(intentional act).

v_ ~ ~ -
Pe_*SW\ec 1'.e on -o.ness

In unie mti1d.iz-c naenes 5, one must be aware of the difference

U

bet”een "ontOLOSi ally secure" and "ontologicallJ insecure".
The ontologicallJ secure w) rs son has a sense of self as real, alive,

, 1‘ w _ ' 7.-- ~- - n r.
snoie, an; conti21 one. he e .ericnces

 

39

The ontologicslly insecure person has a sense of self

.360

as unreal, dead, "precariously c111orentiated from the rest of the
wro la, so that his identity end autonomy are always in question." (p. 42)

He may not sense himself as having consistency or integration.

O —n

He may feel his sell an; body as split. He experiences himself as

split apart from the world.

The ontologically insecure aorson must contrive ways to be

real, to p eserve his identity, etc., in orcer to 3r vent losing

his self. He may encounter three kinds of anxiety. (1) Engulfment -

.1

relatedness with anyone is feared, lest autonomy and identity be lost.

Isolation is the tactic taken here in oroer to fene 01f cngulfment

(2) Isolation - the individual experiences emptiness. This feeling

of emitines s is felt as his self. There is fear of reality which

mirht filI the vacuum (sell). (3) Petrificetion and Deoersonelization -

the individual fears benrgtreetei.es an "it" with no suojectiVity.
He searches for constant confirnsti n of his existence. Experiencing

another's existence is terrilding in that then one may experience

Q

oneself eszniobject of the otner's exjcr ence. So the defense to
feeling ecu» M1501olizei is to aepers :nliz e the other o.i thereby

takes ICLy t-1e other‘s poner to thin; him.

{I
J.

To experience oneself as autonomous one has to recognize 0110501

as a sejarate person. If one does not feel autonomous, he cannot

experience his sesaretcness, nor his relateiness to others. The

a.

ontologicelly insecure person hes trouble in experiencing autonomy,

.'

m - .LI n -, 5‘. '. --. - ' . .3-.. ' J. M. “.2 ‘. J— ,-..,.I., .
any. bl. Cl‘CiOer £1-80 L. u..331‘lC.1Cl_.;q .IlS SC ;.f‘o.oC—O‘clu—I‘<3ic;UScIlEZSSo

 

43

Li the existential .HVJOIVJ010”1 al tradition Lei

-. 1

describes a 3e WO1 s ex'erioncos in terms of his being—in—the—uorie:
This experience of self is not nreaefineé but is an element of how

one structures one' _.e1ce_3tions. It is this context of the

‘ 1

scn1003hn011c 5 world which must no nuerstood if we are to unacrs and

1

' .r. .3. .1 . 1,: ,1 In”... . " . ,‘ .L - 'I- ,._I. ,: . ' ,1
his seasonents ana aCt1ons. a” neon U0 1001 cu his meaninosr

Communication is necessary, and in orC.er to communicate one LUSt

r\- JJ. J- a- "r- -. n .
learn one Ooier's langu1;e.

3-:

Lain; completes the heel; by unoertaking the tLSk of descr oi as

‘LJ

he schizoyhrenic's being—in—tho—Uorld, The schizoia's experience

I
J
J
o

a.

is split in his reli‘ion with his maria, one 18 also split in his

elation to himself, (exari3le - mind body Split, disembofliment).

*3

He ex _3erienoes\ hImso --f as alone ant 1501ated and also as an

0 '7 .L .1 .3: '. J. - 1.1. ‘ ‘ .,, ,
ECO.;1)_GUG ans. o“.-'-8111u3.1”'<.ch. -151 13011.:

J ~- 0 ’ ’ c -

. . 1 "1 Q n .‘ -‘ - __ .-- —- A- -- -< r. C‘, -., .- *,
“311101 Cnlrrct er_soics of 1.1soent1an oeclolofif

1 in tegms of sohisoio and schiZOpILrenic
livisionse nnistentialiy he is concerned with enis tence ano man's

- .I- .' .:
illuGZ‘GSUGL. in 3511' S

U)

o o . .L q‘ P ' _ ”-5- .-‘ - (“.0 r- - q .‘ - 9 _0
be 13—1n—Une—no1_u. I-ononeiologica11J, ne 1

,fi

"- erience of his existence. Laing aghash es the in:o; tence of

Q
grasping at un;ersta:di.; the experience and context of the other.’

 

Experiencing the "not I“ is described in D.H. Lawrence's poem
found in Apjarit:11.

41

This context erect es a frane of reference for the person throu5h

which meani.~s are create: on he engeriencear Experiencing our

 

existence as rel a.teC to - although separate from others, is

ex'stentially based as a reflec' ion of t11e tot: l1t‘r of reality.

‘

He make contact or understan in' another' 5 Horus and/or actions for

 

what they nea1 for him- In this may we relate. Xe remain se3ar ate

by r0005niz in5 differences 1nae1init10ns. ny acting a particula may

9

would possibly moan somethinr different for me, than what it woula

U

here 30ints

1r;
Q ..

[.1 0

mean for you if you acted ex:ctlJ the s:.ne ma". La

out the part of inference in rel. atin5; to othe1 s. Le infer me 1in5 s.

Lain5 sees nrocess in the interconnectedness of totality, One is

not abstra .ctea out from the world, but rather has bein5—in—the—world.
s

Ihmumism is very much a part ofILinfilsCiscussion of the problems

of de3ersonaliz in? and t11‘15'1n5w03le. He uses the 311rase "intentional

k.)

4. ° ..... .. . w: ., 11. 4.1 - - . .1. 1- . .° :3:
act" in el3:9551n5 out lGJ 01 the other. . tbflulCfl 1ny1es ch01ces —
r- r~ . 1 ‘ ‘ V» - . -- . - -' . ‘1. '\ '1 I -, . , c.“ . r.'r- '2 ,3 1:
again tie nananistic trena. “e ,o1sona-1se ana svo1a t11n5 5the

 

other by understanain: Lis context. In our existential schema, Laing

 

snecifically and nointedly makes use of i11fe rem1c induction - in
n—. r . v‘: . . n 't —- t‘.-a. ‘. ' .1 fi' " '3‘ ’.‘ '- I. A . f‘ '
looh1n5 at 1na1v1cua1 pa1t1cu1ar neun1n5s, Qualitati elJ searchin5

for information, using insifint ana intros3ectiOL humanistic tent;encics

 

and an idealis tic overview, nain5 is not intereStea 1n er3'ete-n1ne
meanin5s of behavior,

Laing uses case studies as his method of focus. He Specifically
relates to the cluestion of cu h1tim ive approaches, So can have

5 '.!..','9 ‘ .L

o -. J‘l '- >., ~ ‘.\ . 0“ ’L ‘\¢-. -‘_‘--' ~ . a,‘ - .- ~ ‘ ‘ -_ . _ \
r‘a-1J Q iSL1CS 011 1.3111. 111001.11.) SC.;_-.SO 1.101118. 3.111.. 11flL.C.“SUL-1L. .1..L.UU-'_e CLQCUU

.‘y- U UL-t

 

SChiZthTOfiiC experiences, accorging to Laing. Quantitative
analysis pr Cuces qnzntitstivo information; Ining points out

there is other information which is also 'alueblc. In

the existentionel—phenomenologica1 "tradition", Laing is interested
in inferring feelings “1d meanings of actions, “ether than

seeing behavior singly as signalling sanity or madnessc The

mind is obviously essential to aing in looking at the differences

of the mini workings of ”mad" and "sane" men.

 

Overview

m‘. . _..,.. 3...? " . -‘ '--
110 CCJVGQU" nrl ana 4-ist

2:3

I — ‘
.- -?,~.- .0“ *9“.
o .— b.

ecti

 

o M l.‘-L‘ll 1..-- Vb
1L1: £011.? "0 4“."(30’3 a!“ r739 " ‘V -' 3 .-. fi‘f‘ ‘1’: "- 'L-"tr‘ 4" ' '3-
'. oi o.- no u bde.J.vS 2L1 fOiVL a. Sauleiic J4. be]. c.C olOIllS o

as self conception.

works of G.II. L L-e:

This views

;-ani C. Cooley.

stems

f"en ns' ‘v the
.LuA Up. 'L’d lb

It is one which sees (l) the

influence of 0th ;s n shaoing self Cefinitions, (2) (a) the actual
utituce of the other as related to one's self concegt, (b) the

'l

I
Ulie

:-

.L

perception o nosoonse of

S

to one' self conc

the othora

eyt, and. (3) the

QC

0 even more cl osel related

self as making use of takinn

role of the general'sei other. "Taking J'he role of the otqer" and
"looking glass se f" are fanili icr girases from the nosks of Head
Cello; res ectiJe-"
Symbolic intera tie; theoneticallj views man as reflective
and in ezdo Jenient u'th oth'v men. It is an aggroach which

society. Obviously, interac

1" IfhiC-‘. S;T.‘lbO:i. iC

C”

C. ::lfiel‘ 0‘, ”111

1"“

.o - 1 . .' .
.LOUJ‘ LlCI’CJl 1...]. ~

4' 3—4-—

in 3(a) pro

“q I

iii en t

C‘
u

(.0

8.].-.CCC

(a)

Kinch,

‘

IO ls, fe

O

.2.

v -. 1
1‘. LL31

,
ELI'IC'.

in a completely diffs

H

L...—

rvwr

L) J

C‘
\J

st‘dics. Convention eciol

1.1117

5‘.

e-en an individual

L41;J.

‘ V .-
flu; .1 an

8; 1C bio-Ll

',".

ite fo

,.

3.7012- .

-un- vq

“a“ ncxevor,

ule,

on that th Le Goffman

VATA .2 ' fl ..
enjnasizes difieren

--
~—:-_‘

.--—-&

ch,

 

1+1;

-" A‘- r“ "C. r\ "r" ‘ r“ I, D. t 0- fl -. (‘1
nCPartlano., treat t.-e sell a Stable uni free from Situational

7

s ecific tie on, while GoffxlaL and 3-i13', on the other nana, emphasize the

.1.

self as temporcl and processural, with tentative attitudes mil h
are conti nlually releiincl. The survey motLoi of Kuhn and: I cP;rtla1€.'s
TST neglects the complex -ature of the self. It is ill equigped at

ea uring nrocess, and structure uinfis u) refilacln" the cVnamic cualit;

o—v
Q

“J.

of self concogt. urw~i°"*'ly, in terms 0: -1e symbolic interactionist
tralition, the fluid rela WiOlSli_) between the self and the other

1 1- man
i1 tlLe in) I

g...

is not eons 4‘-e;ea nit

Goffman and Lain" view the self concept in humanistic terns.

They both see t1e self as interpretive. The;r concentrate on

substantive conce E'BUZliZCthH. In contrast, Kinch :;1d Kuhn and

McPartJrid are int ere stea in empirical findings, making

over'tionallz tien of self concept necessary. These conventional sociologists

Jant to overcoxm the anJoctulal, i:nt aitive nature of: em-i one Cooley's

theories b, usin3 a lo eluctive o; ientation which can set up

generalizations which are alenable to testing and measurement. Lney

therefore elicit a wi:ulus ~ reseonse ina e of human behavior.
Kinch, an; Kuhn anl lc-artlani are in erostei i1 predicting

sociu behavior while Ceff Ian ana Lain3 are concerned simply Jith

m;-'i 5 social interzction intelli "“ The conventional example

looks for agreement among investi.ators and metholol03ical preCision;

‘ ’2“ "'"“ ‘q s “L. -' 1 n‘. ‘ “-4 -:~ -'— -‘ l. . . 1- .
the exis ential olamglos, on bfle other haul, a e interestca in the

actor's meanings and in theoretical relevance. From the aistinCt

- - . ' -" .L1 . J.
- . '— .. 3" ‘. -. n ‘ “.5." - .1. H.- ,' A" ‘5
J8 33o Liiiorcit 1.30: ol ..3 a1- -i_ieronu 1 ill.3° on Sell concogt.

Tm
.,.
\J'I

13

n .L‘ ‘_," a. . ‘|
In an urticle DJ .el tzer une Petlas

q o

is a eiscussion of the

Chicago ans Iowa school-s of S;’nbolic Interc‘.ction. The authors

com1ere Blumer's approach (Chicago School) with Kuhn's (Iowa

SzhOOl . The differences found in relation to self conception

1 I
\

seem flttln" to the COL1per‘ son between Goffmen ans Laing and Kinch,

and Kuhn and ncPcrt and. I am using their article as a guifie in the

f ollowin: table .

TABLE I

Self Conception - Image of Ken

Goff .nan; Laing

1. Action - inner itmulse
involvei. (inter: ction
between - lea;'s "I"

and “he" seen)

2. Behavior un_3reiicucble
(because :ersen is
reflective — self inte c
he is more hen ereiuct 0'
plays on him) -

a? ‘ o ‘-~f—' N 1 '
L n. see- is 'ca ‘ iq3 out“ nis
fl

worli 01 objects
5. Self concept as ch:;3in3 possibly
due to internal conversztien.

Can cone to view self in new we;
process

 

lg

‘ .- c. n

Kinch; 251L331 and: c.Partl and

1. Acti n - socially Lctelline-
(self seen strictly e
Head's "10")

2. f Anew r ”eren e group

Cl
0:. preaict
and d1e1eforc b aVlor
(antecegent cen;i*ions

\

C- 9001"; .11410 861.3.

C

A , .fi
$94.1. _-uu.1.LaLl' es

’3 C._

'\ '1 . ", - '. . , " I‘ -.
3. hole-1lagin3 - sell seen
5 .
l . l- l..
as S LI’UCo ‘ '8 .LL - LL...
- an” ~_1 ‘ "n‘AAII 1“ «cf-.4 - '4 bv:‘-“on
kub ka- —J. u; “1 L-J.u..___u.1_1

5. Self seen as st We ture of
self attitudes fir iclz serve
rstems of pre-estso elisheu
plans of action

 

? , ‘ . , - '.. r . .1...“ TA, 1.; C‘ ‘ -"
.BCI'IIC .... 1. e .-C...t'.:-CI‘ (21;. 00.11 .. : - Cbl'x..S "1-;3 C--." CCCO ._‘.L-.‘... IO: IC. 9C-1‘3U-1-5
.9 .1... .'. . ° :. ".- ..,-. “aha .-, ,.. . ‘1‘ ..._, .--..'.. ‘ ‘ ——
.L S 71:30.; iC .L'-uUl " _.C u-‘-C.1," in} .173. 1...] ',....LJLL,C'Q ;.1 CC -...- 3C o’ .‘U :3 .1. 1.4.11“, Cu- .30!
. ‘A‘ A, .. - . .. - \
:1. LL- . .3 . ' r- ‘n- - - -. -. ,. ' . ..- 1"" ~
OUSU - ii.) b-1114. (4.1:... 3 .'CO-. V...‘..-‘..L D, g. .0 o: - $1V-1U-'_C\)'"..‘-L._.-'_, .LAC o, .L‘, ‘- J),

#6

Conventional and existential sociology take different
approaches and make different assumptions in studying self
concept. They develOp distinct images of man, It seems that
the information received from the articles studied correlates
directly with the general approach we see develOped. The very
approach used influences the information received.

The qualities of: axiomatic, deductive, hypothesis testing,
quantitative, cperationalistic and positivistic are what I have
enumeratedznuitypified as conventional ideals. Kinch, and Kuhn and

{cPartland use what I have outlined as conventional sociology.

Fz‘

Through their work is develOped an image of conventional man. He

‘is static, predictable, overt, and easy to describe. The complex and
problematic nature of man is not emulated by conventional work, So

with Kinch's article we watch while a neat methodology describes a

packaged man. An individual's self concept is almost a package deal- hith
Kuhn and UcPartlan"s study we learn that by asking someone "who are

you?" we find out about their attitudes towards themselves. 3y responding
to our question with 20 statements they tell us vital categorizable information
An assumption Kuhn and McFartland make is that ansuers given reflect true
inner attitudes, and that the ones given first are more spontaneous and
important than later re5ponses. It is my Opinion that often a person's
true feelings about themself are the ones least likely to be revealed on

an impersonal questionnaire. It is true that answers given may

show social anchorage, but what else do they sho? They show possibly

V

very little about hov a person experiences his relationship Ni h his

world. They show nothing about a person's ho,e and despair, and
everyday inner struggles. Such sociology through its fragmenting
methodology derives fragmented tn series of disjointp ' mo ales
Conventional sociology portrays man as mechanistic and literal - i.e.
independent of any contex . Kinch, and Kuhn and McPartland do not
portray man as ambiguous and wavering but rather as stable and
repetitive . Man is viewed as having fixed powers and capabilities.
Not only are sociological phenomena seen as having an empirical
nature, behavior is seen as all important,

In using existential sociology, Coffm d1 and Laing point out a
differing perspective on man — one which sees man and social situations
as problematic. Human beings act according to meanings which arise from

social interaction. Meanings devel0p and change through interpretive

Ho

processes which peOple use. There s no automatic usage of formalized
meanings, rather meanings are revised continuously Goffm: points

out in Presentation of Self in Everyday Life that roles have a
tentative character. Because we are always using inferences about
another dld chec:i*g these inf cnces out, role definitions keep
changing Subsecuent events may cause ra evaluction of definitions.
Goffman does not sh o: settleznent about definitions and does not portray
roles as pre—existing to situations. Hegotiation of common social
reality sometimes is a reality in Goffman's world - and then

interpretations agree. Social interaction is not viewed as rule-

governed as much as it is seen as an interpretive process. Laing also

 

vier reality as reflective. The sense of sharing a world with
others is the basis of a person's being-in—the—world. Understanding,
rather than laws of behavior is sought after by Laing. He is not
interested in general Paowledge but rather in trying to make .
episodes intelligible Urderstanding not only behavior but also feeling
and sensing are ssential for Laing. Intentions and subjective
meanings are important. Laing uses a non—system building approach,
and describes something other than systematic man. Through

Goffman and Laing's approach we see man as having some freedom, as
being flowing and ambiguous, changing and complex. By using
assumptions a.d methodology based on inference, induction, process,

quality, humanism and idealism we come up with a corresponding view

of man and human interaction.

 

HAPTLR III

CCUCLUSICE

Chapter one dealt with a neutral enumeration of two forms
of sociology - convention and.existe‘tial. I categorized
six tools of the approaches used in conventional sociology and then
contrasted six analogous areas of existential sociologv,

In the second chapter I showed how these outlined perspectives
are put into use. By using two examples of each form of sociology -
examples with similar content — I aimed at showing the differences of
the approaches. By the very tone of the discussion I believe some

3'

difference can be seen. my point is that not only are the

approaches and underl;lng assumptions different, but also the

theoretical constructs and espective definitions of reality concerning
human interactions. Using Laing's terminology, the two forms of

sociology discussed have "differing intentional acts" pointing out

distinct points of view. Agreeing with Laing, I see importance in

an existential point of vied in trying to understand peeple. In this
concluding chapter, I will discuss what I see as the disadvantages of using
a conventional sociological approach, and in contrast, the advantages
which existential sociology offers. fihile conventional approaches

u‘
I

are commonly used, I believe an existential point of view deserves

 

Conventional Sociolo~v

 

 

Theo Mcvan ages of conventional sociology stem from a
53"
methodology. --ch is based n the enume~ated points of this approach: 3

axiomatic, deductive, hypothesis testing, quantitative, Operationalism,

A

r

positivism. Generalizin“ one could say hese disadvantaees rep up
in the sociologist's :ush for positivism.

In depending on axioms, 110 conventions- sociolorist must
seek out cultural common cenomiuators re ther than reflecting
the negotiability of reality. A determined pre—existing vieJ of the
social Jorli is created. The social, situationally constructed
nature of reality is overlooked

An outgrowth from an axi natic basis, deduction Vier

‘ .I ‘P‘ ' IN . ‘ .' 'r 1 fl
canings Jhicl are independezt 01

I"
.4

description as having steel e
circumstances. Deduction is literal and is thcrfor e independent
of context. Facts st"nd €.nd factual Jerk is intersubjectively
verifiable “iteral descriptions reflect s;1bols as unambiguous.

In order to test hypotheses, variables must be formed. lPrecise
variables again reflect atmnflglwith stable and fixeda ef'1 tiexm
The part of inter)retatire processes in defining situations is

forgotten. Hypotl1ese s molve prediction of beha' vier, leaving the

task of maninn so cial inte action intellibigle as only a secondary god .

O

51

Quantitative stuaies reveal little understanding of a
person's existence- Rather, they s-ek precision and to the same extent,

1‘

relevance is lost. Lanerican Socio 05 icalj' "Jor;<s aim in the first

place at being enact, anl only in the second place at conveying

,ll . . . .
knowlecge of tthr's.J The aynam1c nature of human interaction

a
is comylotely overlooked in statistical analysis.

In 0 orationallz1n" aefinitiens it is hepei that the
intuitive :ature of theory can be eliminated and generalizability
and measureability made oossible. Thereby a humanistic view of man
is forfeited for a stimulus-res gcns— e ima5e of h nan behavior. Man's
comilex s3nbol s and meanin:5 5 £10 not fit into an Operas tional mode of
studying behavior.

Positivism is concerned with the measuring of the empirical
world. Empirical findin5s are valued at the cost of suostantive study

1" q.

. - ’. ~1': 2’ '- J- r \q a. v 4-. 1 I. . '- ' I. ‘ "
.l.:ir ca 1 stuaies ne5leCL cne confilen, anu a lect1.e s1ae of human

nature in noting only observable, concrete behavior. Intentions an:
meanin5s are ne5lectei- Ln;irical 'est Ln5, a5ain, does not reveal the

dynamic nature of huzan relationshiys, and overlooks ambiguous feelings on

in systematizin5

(7)

th-

(0

part of the s1ib3e ct. :ositivism is also interes t-u

4

research. Usually, understanaing is shallow Jhen closed systematic studies
are a priority. A srstenatic emghasis tend to disclace the knowledge of
the shL tin " n: t‘re of t11e empirical world. Open systems are as yet

But—T19

underdoveloyed in conventional sociol05'

 

'Pg-L -‘ q 'nu, -- 's A . v- . (—1" "1‘ ‘~ » n ' 0: NC?
narl na.1na1n, "in ables of American Seci0105 ', ' in we 01 o
N ‘ .

_ ‘-. "n .-,' .L..'I.'., h _ , “4.1 . , 1,} _.-
’ Cu.) 3“", .-\.1~A.;1CC U3“; an“ .‘.4. “1111111 JikliC11 (L1::3J 00‘“ C;.LL:S,

-/ r1
nt1ce—-1l_, Inc., 1503), p. ;.

 

There are three main points I would like to make in summin5

up the ”1 “It 5es of a conventional approach to sociology:

1. In its concern "ith Lirecise measurement, conventional

sociology poses a static picture of human relationships and

xperiences. The survey method, althou5n one of the most frequently
used me thoaol 05 ies in conventional sociol 5y, in lookin5 at the pas» and
the present in a snapshot reflects human life as static. The

wide use of survey moth iolo53 may be explained by it's neat and precise

kabilitr. groces s; hOJe ver, is difficult to reflect'nith survey

Keasurenent calls for an Operationalization of definitions
and these becono rigid in their em::asis on vaa~iables. Ja is bles
are necessary in hypo thesis_testin5 and predictions of human
conduct. However, in La Ln5's terms, they ar an examLJle of "schizoid"
thinking in that they split up and reflect experience as disjointed.

L

This approach no lects the nuances of the relatedness of the parts.

2. Follo.:in5 from a methodolo v reeuirin5 firecise measurement stems
the second seneral disadvantaee of conventional sociolorv. Precise
U U k.)
measur -nent noc wsi‘: tes acceptance of the is ea that the empirical

world is fixea ani uniformly perceive . The situated, ne5otiable

.L _ .9 T: ' .. ‘ 1.4. m: _.1_ _ 7.2,, . ' l , ,1 ‘
nature 01 rea11ty is-ovc-1oolel. 41139 ana sua e alnen51ons of human

 

 

 

conduct are ne5l

LulLS 1 05

In
definit ion 5 and
leaa to biased a
social,construet

empirical realit

A uni ornit

in order to see

Quantitative

1311:1101"

even

4‘1\ f.“ -.\- -\
Us‘ Ski-.10 ‘1‘.~ cbtl

U)

’. J. . . - A1L...L ' .
21.51 L101" “1'0 b1.ulC;lS
1'11

- '14. n- 1 .
I‘GS‘LLJaS 11’0..1 one:

because the Jorl

.1-..L‘.
C01VCflUlC1:

endirical world,

in orier to mine

of social life.

. C‘
1
.J 5..

k0
F3
'0
‘1 I
9.
(’7
C
o .

311:1 -tlu H" (“‘5'

53

A 3- 1 71' x - ~ -.~—‘ 9 ~ A ‘ . I. .r‘.‘ ' --.I\ - . fi 1‘-
ectea. lac on501n5 nature 01 soc1a1 p1o ess 1s 1ost.

>eet tae researcher as nell as the actor develogs

-

me :nin5s, and a lack of .zareness

is tor t‘on in the research. Re oaniz1ns t

o n o. a Q -‘ o o o ‘
ion 01 rea11ty, ana lett1n5 50 of a f1xed notion of

r is necessary if tlle researcher' s bias is to be minim
y 01 results may be attempted by uniformly used

esearch, but each researcher 5ene1ates

1- "\ . 1‘ -‘ n ' V'fi'. wL - J- . ~
material, he attends ls fut11e.

cal—

A
Sv

rotations of the
nature of human proce s ses neecs to oe reco 5nizea

the part it plays in the research project itself.

methodolO5y and measurenent seek to find uni veral,

However, this ideal is an impossible

so 18 1art of an 017013", soc111 vrocess Secon11y,
9.9 - ._ -. ..'.'.. ,‘ " 1.- . 1.. " "fl - 1 A J
11c~ent 1ecnoao105y r111 revca1 Clllfifcnt aspects of

(1'

1-" In -' 'v. .nJ-n n.» *DD
0-1 1.111-351 .1- 11.1 111511.14”, 1".0 can 0.10011 (1111033011

.(-v - -_\-—- ~ .L' ‘ ."‘ 4‘ " ‘1 " J
sane ~ chous of bflC same CDJUCbS by tne resea cn‘er,
a 18 in a continual flux.

1 sociolo5y s e::s to reflect a unifo~mly perceixe

”ml. :. .61 J. .. '- . 0'1 "'11,-
Jnen 1n 11cc lu 11011o1e theo11e s

the a tually chan51n5 confl1ctin5, chaotic nature

n- 1 1.1--.
-J1.thilb:w 0 01. 09.1.0.1

401.0 1.7.1:;

Z00.

‘

1

to the hi5h premium on 11ecision aIa measure ent- In trying to

be objective, he conventional sociolowist rules out takin5 he role of the

o
other. He often vietIs the individual as isolatee and thereby misses
the relational Quality of social reality, Unless the researche‘
akes the perSpective of those-he is studyin5, he will distract from

the reflective n: tu1e of the self. Znterin; the field of study

1h nr moncevtie ns of behavior will not be helpful in terns of

1

information about LOJ the actors thorn elve perceive their behavior. He

U)

can study behavior 111neasu1eattitudes by'usin5 our OJn frame of
reference in formin5 definitions of them; hOJever, we cannot in this
way appreciate or uncors CndZflXfthe actor is exa oriencin5 his er :istence.
In other Jerds, we learn no neJ knowledge, but sinjkfreflectourselvos,
unless we can re the neanin5s and definitions which the actions have

'C) V
for the actor
ConventiOLal sociolo5y can be criticisea then on the folLOJing
grounds: bees use arecis eheasurenent is consia er ed valuable, the

empirical Jorld is described as static - i 5norin5 process - and r1511,

J

in devisin5 o erat nal definitons Iith: .n enzha sis on variables fo‘

.L

l")

hygothesis tostin5. The outcome 0 metl odolo5y causin5 a fixea, uniform

View of the empirical J rli, is an overlooxi*5 of the situated and

interpretive constit utic on of human conduct and a ne5lect of the CUL ities
of human intera ctien ana social relations hi,s. And finally, conventional

sociolo5y is ne5li5ent in applying a non-ethnocentric, takin5-the—role—of—

~ - 1.1.... 1 1°. 5 .3. ,1 1 ~ .. -11 1. ‘ x - '1 1.1,.
the—actor, Jers.ect1$e 1a tzf.1a- to unaerstaaa aha aescrioe 1un1n

- U

v-

q (5“. '. f“ *‘,~..y - 0"; ~P ‘ . ‘q N. .. L‘.‘f1 . - A - _. ._"‘ fl . '1 '_ I
re11t1ons11>s ans e1fier1enc-s. Ia t1ese Jags eon.ent1onal Seeio1o5d

 

0
wt”
U 0

fit’ ,
bd‘-‘

..
”u
.L

q

S SOC 1C...

distort

' 0 -

."' 0 C. .-.,,s C, -‘_ fifi‘r
—~..i~ vilu.l.v.-. UOC.’-l./_.\/ ‘
Aw

 

v-wqtsm

 

Foint by point .13 can contlaso this Qp; osch with the conventional

u g, ‘ f- l '2 -~ 1‘ I:- ‘ .
one, ans thereo; see its ei‘ent sges

Existential sociology retleces the certitude and givens of
conventionally used anions with the uncertainty and maybes of

inference. This gives a tentative quality to human interaction.

1 . '- ,-‘ A 5" -‘1 h —‘ v_ p v, u ‘ -.w 0‘- '- . . ...
Pelceitei meaning stietllLiIsSJsJect LO TCVlS ion — the; e is no

“' “7 .""' “a" " ‘ +t‘ ‘.‘ 7‘11‘ 1 n- 1“ /~ -~
ste ble fine: guilit, hi to encn. luCIC ire no cosolntes in
social reality.

In aiming at nah n; s Ciel situations intelligible, -xisten tie;

. q H. — ~' ”‘5‘ ‘ ”‘11": ‘ ‘l‘ '2 \‘l ‘ .‘ ’. . L:- 1-. - 1" ’
seeioieog issue is fissionlir eglsoces one insuctlreig CFGnLCS
”*4 6" "(“: c .r~-.,, LY‘fi-q '71, " c " - '3 "’3 for Cd . - r"' ' "‘N’fi‘n".
$5..“"u-1.s) .L 9.1 UA.‘V..L‘ L..is a...) LL1_4...C COL -th- 13.2. nglOJ-OV4 ”4.9 b
. ., a: 4.: -. .° C. n -330- ., 3 q- 4”. .,. n 5,. n 1*,” h“; -7, fly“... ,9...” '
‘31 C.L.'.C u.‘..U.1 .Lu cs v. ill" .., v.51». UCl.v.L w..- 4’. «we C; UVo-kaII—ud‘ Lu. 9 - U;- «a».

and then angiiec to wrt culcr settin s. -3ecs‘se arediction is not

~ t. 1-0.1.-. ‘-. --° .1... .1.°,"‘ .: " _.- ~ - ' , . 49,“. ... ,,., ..
songnt alter J CulSuUnulun seclo_eg;, tne: is room lo; “ Di iit;
n 3-3-... 2:..- . _- .. n .3 ,. '.° 3, .. .:. ° .LJ..- -..- . ‘_ 1»
O.L L'. I; Q11U$3Lls M41K..- LICLHJIUS -. :1... A]. an .141, .UC 0.1. .16 :1 \' 1.;1O'j-Cil' tllb
0 g 0 A- o ‘- ._Q Q _)Ifir_‘ I o f" 4- A ‘J‘ 1‘)
eitu: .tiont.-titu- oi oencrior is izen sccctt cl.
‘r -. _ .. . M t 1. , : p 1 - t. -. -,"
uOvGJlCut, Jl'OCCSS, .-_1-.. cn._;1ge ire hi 5h 30.. oi tne Lens oi

existential sociol o ists. leaning is seen to be derived from tne si

. - .x o . r, m-‘:- ' rx‘vv:< ‘ . -L’ - ~fl . ' '
seeiel interaction — me,nl_;—n ”in; is uncrefore on as a lorm-tive
... r-1‘ . J. - :._LF, .5 3.1... ..-,. ,.--- l , p '71.-
myocess. inc ac o~'s incergretixe s,s _l1tles are csreluilj
.

-, ‘ .1. :. 1. . ,. ,--,- V c, ',- ° 4. l, 4.‘ .-
l-\; .-vg\ SJU cn—l :4. e--l: V3 U4.u.-— ks ; “VACC-1 - L’VClb-d— LIUCL‘%C U131 LS

seen as *1 inter;1e W1.e fir cess,_.nc not as lulc—governec1
.‘ -' u‘ - - . n o. \ f I ~ -. .I r‘ 4L -1 .\
A150, even 1'?"lC , rcnl1t 15 see. 13 1u1e ruther tnun

d"
b».

1-» a»
1 $t..

as ving fix

-) r‘.‘ .tVr . (N I‘ (ihf'gfi. ”H “‘.I. 3““ .J- . (N r‘ 11. ~ 'tr'fit- ’.
-0. “_'_l u 19 (a 9Ju_g_ L» OCVQQ, 1L) lo 1.4.]. C- 1011 L, 1011
tan-t : r- V 4- 4n~ raw-— *- (“‘3 ~ *- "r" nr‘ b';' 4-31 1-10 In.
cob ol—Q CLl-l A;L1K/UL\J-— 0‘s 1 IO.I UV“ U. Oboob U I ‘I .‘
' . ." '2 ‘. . . ~ . ' .2 1 r~ .2 J- - _
thls sense :11 “ACJnc1ge 1s stc131. _ soc1etles,
.- -!- - ‘ A~ -I- .u‘\ . 'I' -\ "\ r‘-_- \ |~ I“ a. P
no 1: ces 3e; :t1 10 t1 ; v.0 c,;‘:*, 110 0.1—Q m;
t" 4nr—a mum rim-a ,5 4, c -' n 6 ”Ln 0 -' I “0* r
- _191) 1 11A; nu; ——s.‘. _u m c. 1.; '-5U\J Oi C .1 hi. 5.)
"-1 1-- 071/. no -: '4 n"; ' '49‘44": fi‘qr- ‘5 fi‘. r"\ If» h”. A 1",
LQ-Lu, &L&.s~ C-Ld‘ m—J. b COL$-L-§—U_ 1&5” C$.\_-':1£)b, -—51\Jo I-.. bL. U0
1' , r. -- r\ 1 7- - w a F -9 r~\‘ ‘ ’— J- .1
373 "L; “CC”? 3c-CC .10 CJGII" ‘nC'v‘ 0.1. 110.1' .14 _‘ v-1CSCS
n L ' . A 4 ,0 .11 ,1
an“ tne1r :c e nee 9R ,;ct 01 1 Mo ificd ouc1001
I o a n "- ‘2‘:
‘ 13 c. SC'Clc..L [JOCCS

Jhen (U“‘L1atiVC.i1C;" ‘cmc;1t of empirical research is
attengtei, there is an outcome of a static, rigid VieJ of the
world Cuali ta 173 analysis, on the ethe: hand, seeks un1crst1nc1n1 and
Me ev lee rather than 9:11 inechi; 31d gre;icticn. A
qualitative a; rerch makes 20 of garticivant ens e~v1tien, case

_‘ ' . I . ‘. ..-' m1 '1 ' .L ' -
stu11es ani,01 non;11*cctive1nterv1e:s 1ne qu311tet1ve apnreechcs
‘1' — <9 [‘1 . ‘ q 1‘ 4. ‘7‘ h 1R r . .r‘ ~ 1 -

c11eJ 1or 1_u1e, 31.” 1g 1ne1ngs cuustnncc 1s cen51cerec more
0 _‘ . I v _ I... - '.:. A.
1mto: ant thcn ca>irical 11nc11 s

TT 7,. «L‘ .; ~ , ,I' I:- 1 —' n ,.

“OJ, tncugh es s 5331 Of an 1nsc iaele curies1t

‘ ‘J- v—‘»- --'¢: ~~~ IN v ~~ '- -: - A a -v
CDCLU eve1seuin , -2e1131thc31t1cs Lu tLeochd, I
1 _ ,— . .6: q. . ‘ o r. " ‘ ‘ 'L .J

1150 £901 1 13-1nite 'e>u;sicn tCJ: s. cc: Luirino ccnc:ec c

- - ' f" .L -. °. 1:- ,. .v. 1.1. .7 :1. _. -1 .. .: ..°,-.L ‘ 1.,

‘34-'CClSGJ. “COS: U .Ll;1-LU Sj-u-.'u, VIZ—:3 LLCSUduL‘C Q: _UaiLl Lie—v“.

f‘ ‘1r\-qr~ r‘A-- --‘ “V'm n r-‘\ -q'~ I: (54". f“ T r-~' h“-". N ‘C‘ ‘\‘ 't I

CA 11“- “\oUJL J. V J \J.& VOQU‘ Ms». —V U V01 — J. K-z-l V“; Uh.) Ud

,1 ,. I—»-, r-v 1‘ u‘I-I— - .-. .3 . n- -.I u 1" . J- 1-‘r

so not Jnnt to 1101 13eu1 L1n;s — en“ es sacn 1U 1-5

c-‘vflwh " Iq’x "‘s K) _. "x” h' J' I" (- \ rfi LI~4 r'~ r I n 5 t4 311,, *7

.1. LA .L .V .a-le1 .1. uU '._.1 “'3 OUCJ v.1 J I"; U —Q (1;) 3.... J- Lil, .n
s- .1. . ~ ~-‘. - h v‘ r- — l- r\"’: 0‘ ‘1‘ ‘. J’
3* natureo- 1u 1s tgodon, ass #1rcce11cu; thn 1

SOURCE 1

 

 

 

"‘.
it‘
r~r CH Tr o ‘vr‘- ' C . -I 1-” Cl- ‘-,-v p
Tenotsu s11uuwa1, 11~cr3ue 1ch: 1 cc 1010*1011 scwgd 01
P - ‘_ ‘ K ‘ ' 1 " 'I”
011711.101“ (11' "13.3018 31,1103 -..C;“‘l._...__, .L,L.-C/, ‘1‘); luv-1.1, Lea.
-m
r- ,--.A - I“: T-l‘ r‘r‘ ”71"1’ fi'flr-I 1T ‘ p n I- 1‘1", ’1‘
UL.:.JL-L‘CL‘ .43 .LL,~\'.:~.L miu. 93., ' 4..-C 1.19.1. LVC1 3 L18 111.130 OJ. 1. 31 1'0 b.1141}; L1
-‘ r-L *- Y-r v Al‘- ‘ . |- “.'v' :11-r n- u, ‘n-C- -‘f-:-' .9 -‘ a .‘,r ‘U- _ - r‘
1-1.1, 1 .- .10 -11, 3111., 3-. .1, '2.-.tu-~.--:,,s ... .15. ” (..e.: 1 11.: Simon 5.:
C ~.~1(-'-~ '~- . 4 ,rf.'\.‘ - A _ : (TIN ’\ I
UC.A\.ALJ uUJ. ’ A.) ‘12)], _ ‘‘1' ~ -v/"lvyL a

\J‘!
03

Human being 3 act accelding to meanings :Ilich arise from
social interaction These re inings change through interpretative
prOC‘SSCS used 03' the actors involved. Thereiore, in line with
a humanistic perspective, the individual is seen as confronting<
a world which he must interpret. This Opposes a View of man as
s 1sly res _3c neing to some ultimate empirical envi; enment. Thor
is a 3laee for freedom in this humanistic a33roach.

Hunanistically, a study of interaction must be.maae from the
position of the actor — since his action comes fro -.n his perceptions,
interpretations and defi.itions. Th e researcher must take the role
of the actor in order to understand the actor's context, and thereby,
behavior.

Idealism is not interested in system—buil ling but rather in the
complex 3 d dynamic nature of social interactionsa Non-empirically
natured material is co:1sice:~ ei innortant; for eiamgle, intention
and meaning develoynent are scrutiniz ea. Overt hehavior and actions
are not complete indicators 0. attitudes. ‘Existential sociology does
not have a wt; aulus—response imafe of man, but rather one which

vie. 5 man as an intricate and lhbvflblOchc organism always in the

process of ceconing.

I think I c 1 sum u3 the advantages of : existenti ial approach
to sociology in a word use; by Blumcr: "sensitizing". Existential

sociology is sensitive to the conce3ts of 3rocess, Situation, and

the actor's content. By "sensitive to" I a: refs ring to a U“L“CLV_C ical

U1
\. O

0“ ~‘ "I“ ’5 - '1‘- fi ' "3' ‘ 5*- 1' . ".1 I‘- ~ ~ - n1 -. a ' -
uflu unconstical o; “nose: In having tnese sensitizing concegtualIZations,

an existential aggroach to sociology helps create an a; arenes s of their

realitv in everyaay social life. I will elaborate on how these

')

concegts sensitiZe us to this a! hceness: ‘

1. Process Anarc_css ~ heality, and the definitions of it, are on-

 

.'

oizg. Th re is a tentative, uncertain c. ual ty to the em3irical uorla.

“ 1

with social situations, and the; fore m vement

 

o -‘ - I - ‘ ‘ J- -\ r..., .0 1., I 4.7 '1. _ ‘ o ‘ o ‘. o .- 4‘ r‘ .q .0 . .L _q
is always present- ”no .18; is that JnicL 1s ,erce1m1 t a_l aesrgnatea
‘ "r «a 0'7 rm: - '3 h-w'L ("F13 - c- ” J " «a ‘ m "7‘4. 4 t "-3- v- '11- '1 " 4 n
D‘, 0 1 u..._11.:..'. _CLJ- u tinfoil“) an». {181100 DJ. 0U. Lu .11 O 1"“?sz ul [(3 *mbs

 

 

The e31 ir ica ' world is hereby not seen as having

 

uniform, fixed, staole, r static chm acteris 'ics. hany interpretations

are made necessar'r b? a shift' P moving reality; therefore, a temporal—

U a O,
processional Ljiretc1 to studying human behavior is call c for In

' 1

order to capture tne _3roeess ional elements of human inte°aetion, "the

n

- - 5.1.3.
emergent relac iozshi1 bet .een eel; cone

*3

'CSignateC Meaninfis

C)
x.)
(I
l J.
O
Iv-v
,J
C)
so

If

u

“_’_ 3' I . . a , :1 _~ "1;

‘e reccraeu, ana_yzea, anu exwlaineln"

‘ ‘-O .L ‘ 1...?“ n- . >1‘\” 1 L O -_ -‘-, I _ “I f‘ _ Y‘ _O .. ’10-
an en stentiai ag3lc1cn to seeiclegy is not a SyStOJ builaing
h ~j~n r~ ’- W'}.".‘a'\ 6-4”; v- r‘ '3'- 1 L q —, '-.° 3 ' '1 ° ’1 "
L‘\;/+ Otucd-L $1-94.. kl £4.3— K—I ALJ k~QSO.’—LIUEJ 8 Eur) VCCiC»; 1" Gil-n—itu’ 0-1 irlllclt CO
0—. A- A -- J "_‘_ - . D h o q‘ A“, “_'qf": ‘_ ”fin-1" 1 be? P.
builc a sdseen. Lither cl ments cl seeiet, are c ultra 11¢ aeiinea.
mu .2 .l h..:“.1. ' -‘~~- J." ‘ ,1, J.“ ‘ T- J. .', ,1 ,nj
11ere 15 Lo .ullu-in ,ur3ose 01 nonoosoas1s. intergorsonll

h

con17°ct is v1euce as L38 fundamental structure of human action.

a..-

 

11+

 

"17’ "‘ ., .3 ‘T‘I " fl .. ‘\
Uorna1n. JCGZln, " 3e nothanlog es 01 Sumbol ic Interaction: a
.0 , 0 - - .0 ‘ r1 1.. .3 .: 0 -_° 3 '1 ,. N- rm, ,- .1
Grit; al ie11er o1 nos oaich 1cc;n1:ues", in so 111 -s chclo f -nrougn
...-. ‘1 *' .' ‘71.: -1- _'_. : -... * “ . #1., -_ (3.1. ,..,. ,1 .‘ '3, _ -,..l ‘11-, ‘. ,. H,
E) “.1- .--'-C -4; UL)..‘_.C ‘J-.".J-L ~ ‘3). L)", \.J.‘k/‘; (‘1‘;‘I O U D‘JALU 1.1.1»- .L"..." U Cd, .‘3 o J.‘ g.J..UC..I‘ 111.41
O f O“ “Oar-fl“- 70-“7: A H . _ J. ‘ : I - 4 f‘ V \. - ' ' 0
use“ - ‘rc «” ~‘ 'u3 1s‘*v' 11 3 1- .
L nu.) . .-v.1.v-.. Vd— -—V\Jv - —--—u.-——LLU’ on, , v}, -’ l

Societr is seen as a co1Lection of conflictinc suocuLtui cs.
Chan3: e and growth are the ongoing outcomes of this pl rob lenatic
nature of7.1unC11 interaction. Existential socioi 3y reco31izes
a fluid dynamic nature of se1f—othc“ interactions and the

importance of process in ever"oa; Life.

10

. rs . (‘1. (N q . ~. — . ' m‘ | A ,1 , I ‘ . 1
Situ.t1c .re~o1oss - 1ne so on oas1c awareness to whlcn

1L-..- o..|u-.- -

e::istent a1 socioLogy is sensioiaca is one of the situat1o1-a lit;r of

re selecteu and

cl"
P.
P
,.J
U)
P]
If
(D
(1
(J
F3
O
I”)
5
l...‘
(1‘
F.‘
9
5.4
U)
(‘3

men 11in3s and oefini

rechecked i1 1i31t 01 the situation

 

.7. I. ~ J- , . (-1 ~fl .- J- f 7n . -, r . r— -- \ .1. ..
C1osea S.7So31 is a311. n gateu. 11 nor th< actinb out arescrioea
- n v J- , - 1‘ -, "‘ J- l‘ n, — .
e1actnents of r0103, 1 to; son acts according to the 3er sfiJ ctivcs
_Lj _ H J__f _‘ 1 o ‘1‘ _r o A .‘ h g c. - I ‘
su3.liea by one re1at1ens11; ofotacrs 1n oL JUL, ano their actions.
rn‘, -:- , 1 . '. ~ - -.I -— ‘- J- v . I - ~~ ~1- :1
nzcrefore a oceanic e o1fe~1n3 SJEbCJC t121n3 th?0% 3 r1 es o1
‘ .r- ' -"',"1 1-». J- -'- - a“? 1.4. - '1... . --
oenawior 1a11s s1ort 11 no11cco1n3‘ Ih1t actual1x goes on LI LsfinL *"
'1. ,. .1. ° .1 5 -- .L 1-11. ' ,1. . _ 1 1‘1- 1.
a sit 4 __ ,
0 U! .~ A «--P~ - .1 ,. - (j - - «L.- -‘ . Y: r, v‘. L‘. . :—
Jn1c1 13 ”*ln: Jrosceiooa aha ore-esoaa11s1>a mlSS one r lationul
v nu - --h an- ' -
111111161“ 01 .301111-3: .
‘g’: .1 1* ‘1 ---- .01- .1 .11.: ‘1' 1,, . 4.1 1. 1 1
“1t: uue a11o 1nce 1or geeo1c 11conso, one root geta3nor
D - ~ 0 .1. v '- .— r“ ‘ ..- I p
o1mooesn SClSlloiiiC sec1,1o3f is c3 -r1 t; nooion o1
-- _v. . 1,- .. .- .. ,..L “ r .L 1.. - ,1.” 1° 11'- -1
SJSUGJ. It thrLcos 1o 1oaso ..'o cLustors o1 assoc11toa
7‘ 1" .\ P‘ 7r: - P, n r,~ A?“ 1 - -—. 1 («J- L: L " o J. v . o . I
1131.1n3s- 1exe1 as 1n obsorJ. iona1 1oo1ou1e, ejsoen inglios
- 1 ‘-l-:- A - 9— . .r- -‘- — .u'- w.- .A J— p.‘ —q'--—
:.LLC.L‘.L.-'_'1 CED, C v- ibLL-EC , 3 DJ 'VC ul flu , 1-0.10 :.C-.'... 19'. ”.1 LI, L.€Ub1“o--_.ug 1
,1. g , «.1. ' *1- 1-4“ ’1. *7; . ,. , -..,-‘.'.'.-. r- -1 .- .1.
c~¢1~ru {AICC¢- vac—1C: 5.. 11:: “L‘Cf; Um—l Ll-Jr y‘ oLCo-TV .. \- S L.\ 1‘ LtL-é-J-o v ”‘4. v Dd be U0
\ v: Q a . .‘ o. J. N ' ”M ' {I ‘.!‘ \ n P ‘A .:
Le1n3 stuaie1 1o su3gosos '1t01c011octeunoss, c n3renens1on,
As‘ 1,} r‘ . -:-’-~- 1 , .~ . D -. 1'1 ‘- 4.-T W
55$.81ms~~.3£1.‘ 1...;— U0 ’ le‘u 1-01 -‘Cl‘831‘1L-——-—1— 9 J. b 8:10 U-lcz‘s L~——;—
" ‘ Pt I 1‘ J. _ _ n .I _'_v‘ L”, I " '\ _’_1‘
consciousiess 01 the oerr'rs aha DLC tnr111s, ULC
1-- h -- '1‘" l“'\"“. J'Ywa\'L -‘ ' J‘" ‘ ' - .0
hei31os an; o :e -ex As t11. ma21 the concrete 111e
-- v- n\ ‘ 1“ “ ' f‘ . "" J.U
01" .9111 in .1 1..cns\101otu2 .
17:
.LL/
_ 1' , r-J. -:’1‘. . 1.? '- 1'. -, .f' ’3- :1 " . ' " 35‘, -—
..'.-. 131'...C\3 chwl’ . LLLJ POCU-L-C.1VU 3-0-38 Cl. L"vC—D.~C:Ju«r:" .41 L'\~'C-‘--»J--Cr- '-
MM
' n- '. r'.- ‘ ‘ -*‘ ‘-r\ V. ‘. ’- f“!' .' “'A r~-- ‘ ..~ --7\| - ?v‘. -'-y 1 -.»\~ -r 1 .1 -p "u \x-‘".
{-3-1 -41 ' : P‘~_ K). o -‘ Ink—rl-‘J— ‘NJ VUJ‘l—a M‘lx... noA‘U-L fl .4. '1— mCII (.i'Q-I d ‘l‘CJC ": .L & CléU-l-C
M-.M a- " ‘ V

The unique nature of the em_1iri a1 moment is overlooced in system

buildin5 and not no situational ana ysis of oaisodes.

Tne ““Ob_pmcElC nature of social situations is noted in
1

existential sociology“ The self is a3aLn not seen as stable and free
from situational Specificationt' The response of the other is taken
into account.

Although situ: tio11al characteristics can 't ex11: .in all
behavior, knowi15 the actor's intei~gretation of th e situation is essential
for understanding his behavior. The e: :istential sociologist is

.l.

to the invert11ce of the definition anni Cl “fects of the environmental

.

one so ial situationr

3. fictor's Context ixareness — Similar to situational awareness in

 

. o A . -.-|- J“‘\‘ "‘ - ‘ fl**\ h .n-I , ”'P V'- .‘N ‘.h."
be115 sen51tige to one enriIO‘.- c;‘1t l anr seeial content, on stuntial

.1'M1 e to an inliri ual's contex Because an

(.0
(D

o -' -- o -
soc101053 is also
1' ‘ ‘ ‘ “: ~\ - "J' 1‘ ‘ . '1‘ - -‘. (x . . l‘ --q. J- ' J- . (‘1
actor acts on his fiercefitiens, ana 1noerxretat1cns, an enlsoencial

"‘ "‘ r~ 3- A!‘ - J‘ V). . ‘4 ‘, ’t - -_‘r‘ ‘f ”L r‘ -4 '1‘ hv '1
a_1ro; ch res:o as the actor's content. The only uaJ bO unaelsUanu the

.J
O
[.43
c!-
If
0
(\
Ct
8
’3
*1)
(1

. a ___ .~'--. .L‘ H _;'0 J.1 1‘ ('1 _‘Q‘Qfi.’ ..‘
act1o1 '1 tau_n5 one roie 01 one otner. 1he noe1 15

- n-. n J- any . fin~4 J- u _A‘ '7». '1' vv n 3
OJ. SAL-1 (J. LIOI,' S b31LV~ :10? 18 C-A—Kls'..L LIO us.) 011.1“, w 'oJe 11.1“3‘81 tang. il—LS

r1" °-- r. 1 ‘L.’.\"'L “"1" AJ' '3'" -.- r C an. n " “Hr- .— -,-.-" ' rv t '.}j".t - n
‘ivan—l; C011 LIV‘-U’ i-lofi'xn 1.1V LI fi-n-L .‘C \I‘f L18 AL—S t..C blUAAQ QCCO; L-J-Ilb O 'DIfio’i-§ IIV

\ |

'ein if we had 3113 then (our meanin context). A study of interaction

'43

be: .1ade f1 on the position of the actor one his frame of reference.

('1‘

.115

é

' J

5 1n the realisation is inelied here that there is no determined
1;ka

‘I

worla to be Ci we ver i by the sociole5 st - there are individual

’0

\.’~
" .1" ' 1'. ' '- - .L- J. .' . n 1.1 ,. :1. 1.".
I -‘ fiu q '1 a “ r3 1 . «bl -u w ‘ . -
1...... Cl -1CC S 1.11 L.... .111LL‘1‘ ,1“; L€.t1C1lS O1 Luv S1LL1LL1O. . 13'; C. ‘83

actozs construct txe soci: JorlQ, oxisbcntial sociol:1sts look

at their Joint 01 ViGU in orQer to reach {3 undem~ tchL m; of the

q C - O 0‘ J

sLen 1:1 soc1o1ogy 1s 1nocrcsteQ in "sM'mpsth tic 1Ltm'o section"

},_10

u Live versucggnfie a} rorcl1 in gott1n

(-'

«a. -\ ,.~ 1- -
L1umspj, 11n1.11 1n

-.

I‘" - V ' r“ . P‘ J. -\ 'L . I\'. r‘ -. .5- - . -
intin Le uaacss Q1L1n cf L10 QcLor QAQ soc111 1136.
n, - (- ’- J-v 1":“\ . t I. r r. 0 1'. . ‘ fi- ‘ - v- ‘Ar‘ . 1 ‘
1norc rc L1 u- ens1oas 01 m1. JulCfl use C1e1rly euqhus1zec
o l - r- ~v'. J- r‘s ': n‘ ‘x ' w -, : v m‘. . —, 'L 4 v- - '
Jlth Qn eu1sLLat1u1 y0233cct1nc. 133 flrsL 1nvO-JCS the

interpr‘nlve nature of man, the second, his self reflective

.' 1- ‘0 r- r. ' «’o. .x .1 (- J~‘ VP
1. “Ln ma1es use 01 gnQ C1an.es m31n1n s Ln1ough int3r>rcti e
‘r‘ ’1' f‘ ' . - J- \ I" . n 1‘ v' (5‘ . o y 9" . t r- . fi‘,‘
“recesses. 10 Qcts on L10 b1s1s 01 tuesc neunlngs, "n1cn urlso 110m
4.1 '1’ '1' . mum, n -, ,. ' -1. n, - .. '1'!
an 500111 intcwt1o1. 11Lro101c, m1n lS sLLa 1101 un axis ex1t111
‘ ,N n- . --| ~ J--1 1 J- '1 --\ F. ‘-‘f‘" - r~
0011;101—consL1uc 11- 11Lher~Lhan behQJio1—re 1L11Q.

n, . . 0‘ n‘. 1"\II1 A - ~—r~p - .. - ,.- *2, Ar‘- . r" .
inls 1s Q chuLQ 1111L1L1ce %:o1 co 111L3b1onL1 scc1olL W'. sun 15

 

A ,-
I
4'0
T- . o J‘ -I.4\r-' ~‘ r. J-‘a - -'- -— fl ‘ ~10“ ‘ -. ” '2 J" .
L-1Qcm~L;LL119 Lac con Lcfit o1 tne oder 13 ; nLcoss1L; 1n
‘ ’. . -4.‘ .2. M 1‘ .L‘. J- -- m1 .. J ‘ . ,-. -'- f‘ “I -~- ‘
1‘- 111111.}; :1 -211... '. OJ. U--O Q :U" - 1.115" “C 4.8 g4 SDCLECAL; Oi -..O‘.C 1.11
t.*’: O F'\ ‘11.:\' 1‘.“ r?" —.. 1‘ "\ ‘°" -. (“"13 T {3,14 *5“ .w'-rw "(JF‘ C" «(B-1': ".1 C'T‘fi N
Ql—LJ L... .:C .L UJ Lav ——I—U-°- 0 -Jv EU: 4.. --.L—$--’ L vs.) ..‘~ 1V; —\;.L 'g‘k.

V - J. "" . -.- 1-31. -°.,.: -- . «‘4. r -— 1“” v- MA-J. -
t-c "AOU 1‘. IA L1:L:1L1C1h :ncblzer J0 :L_1ahu:sh 1C3 a A mLaL cur
-p' -. . - '0 ~-., " - wr- (‘ ‘ r‘ ‘ .7 ‘ Q ~-;- ‘q - ‘ -. ' 7. q ~ :-
ehpLxlcdce 01 cu: sui'os. Cc.nL ct is 1119 1a muLug1 :011ngj131LuAL

'.‘ ‘- - " . n. " J. “ ,- n., .‘ . ,-,..2. ': .D . ._ - '
1 501 as. ‘n1ess we .310“.rn Lo 105s QAQ re L13 5011 Je caanon
‘1 3- ' 1*“: 1H1. x“ . - ' .. ° ' 1 . 1° " 4.--
1ovc. L 15 L1 C 111:»1131 Jit;.11c1 I 11.0 tr~1L11cus L1f1icu1LJ,
-- 1 J- --l¢~ .Q 1 -—-~ AL- \ -~- A .- .‘ n
for ‘mll- t0.1513;109- :3 L13 A. r‘o:b-~C 6;:U—flel- AC t-:e 8,5ch- ninJ-VS: ‘.J.‘ U9 U0 ‘ 1.1413 33—1

L)
O
l
b—- C - - ‘y‘ r~ L716, 0"‘2-71/‘muoc 'L'A- '1A1‘r-fi - 1' .-. '1"' ‘e '0 ‘1’)n“1 ‘-‘1 ’30
U, \1. :J—IJ. U--\/ U;.V.L u L. Viv-1‘13 U--J. dug- L .. -' Ou$1 .L‘ («JU- OL K1“ 2.. 6;. D,
D

U
’.{\""':‘| ”\s‘ A. y‘v-Crfi‘ ' L‘1-.5r\-1'~’-\ F. I!— .-,-L r -‘ (~54 (1-.,/-.‘-q(~- \A-«J- oo-‘ ~L‘,‘ 1; «fl. J“'\ ‘\ 1
x 1.11 O -..- up -1. b-_- uu -- \-\ u.) U111. v.1. 1 ngq..1v.-u .....L/;. 11v Obuzl ~
U o k.) V

a a l 0 Q T T - I . — —
~ ”0' H’.‘ --“— r. 9‘ -\ sq pr: Pq fin-‘p '1 "I\ ,\ -' p.34 - A 1A-. '- -o ’ffi_~1 — f“.
.n.\J‘.. VUUMA IAA‘J .L k.‘ . \,U 1. b ,1. LIL! A .v .,,. -..U .‘lvU KJxl .LU Vfi-lw 1%-”; OIL--1
'.' 1‘ T ‘l fi- 1. hwy-I) -\a~1jt "- 3" N“ C v‘ '- ‘QY‘J 1- 'G‘v~-:1fl':,fi r‘l [\‘u1-u‘ :5 r‘ rv —: "h' I o? .n‘ L‘.—:‘ (u
‘b‘lat * “JV Ln—b " Iv -&~- L.- n-AU L. 'v~‘.l\lo.A—L. U“ g.‘-.‘—,-.-b CV“-—\A UL: ': LlJcl.L_J1CC “‘ U.L—.O

' h n . n q . o —- . . — . o J.
.5 " \I-‘ln-u- .. ,r‘-1 A. n)... . -- ~ f. A — Irma -r-‘~-‘ —- -‘ ,..,‘ ,. .‘1 A-- .A N .‘ A 1 ,. .. .l.‘ .5 CAI-1'5" ‘.. V r‘
‘ L) 'V&- _ .L Va. L v \J \J .5 1v '~/.L C “.1 u VAL U—k’b.‘.4._‘. OQA\J. V- .k/ ‘~\J.A. ‘JU 1’ k...\'. .10: 1 VI 3—1 ‘) DO

. o ‘v o n I
‘ ~-. ,-. . ~ ‘--f‘

. J, -. . . _.-': h 1.- _1. _. A . -‘ ’ ‘ ‘ ‘. ‘ _'_1 V ' 1. ,4.
C.1LI.1..1L1.---"U _ :1 U1-0 C-.-—-:’L'Va-1LI.~.A-- I'L.A—A1 _ L--.-}..‘VC:L;~UV 9118 CO -IELI41U C“

J V v Q
< .n n-o ‘r'\-\‘
U—LV V U--Uo.

-L

not seen as singly conforming and reacti 5to an OUtSiLB en'ironment,
but rather as actinr and effecting the enviroxnent. There is a

L)

1i) econ in existential sociology bet"e en the actor and

 

his environment. The actor has a'part in creating the environment.
This nterw"et1'e quality of social life necessitates a process point
of $1 in sur; endering the 5mr S) for a stable fixed empirical world
:ith ureacterrinew reaifhnade pat erns of human interaction.

'1

2. Similarly, in fierceiving man as self-reflective, we attribute
a role—making, rather than a role—wiarin ,inage to his behavior.
Han is canabl e of makins indications to himself. 3y ak 5-tlze—
role of the other, he can self interact. Therefore, he is more
than a mere proauet of what glare u‘on him from the outs i6 .e world.
nether, it is tsue that he rehearses, makes inferences, makes and

f5 \ ) ‘\fl 4‘ '.L . f, ' .,\I\V '2 . Ff, . q 1,". ,-1 -5—~ C“ .y (-
assesses glans, etc. hex senavlor is maae poss1ble tuTOUQJ enpiorino

aid p~acticin5 th se p‘ocesses. In the course of internal conversati ns

C.)

person can come to see ainself in a new say. hole-making behavior
involres a constant tracess of creatin and constructing attitudes

and charior It is a )“ocess union relates to becoming ra her

than an identifi atio:1 of being.

30th conventional ana existeL1tial approaches to sociology
ave aavantases and Gisaavantag 5. Since both unCO'er and hi5hli5ht distinct
aspects of social reality, he are both useful for sociologists. a

\
. ' :- .1.1 '1'; . ....- 1,... 1.1.... . .1. 7 ..A'....1. .6
I‘CSCZJ‘CJ 0.1. v.10 lie-3:... 1.0.1:; fer, €110.13 Lac: 8. -iC Gil Qiill _3Ul1iu OJ.

vi e.I to be rare; J use; aha/or a>1rociatel in sociological research.
T11is thesis points out the effects of this imbalance.

In orael~ to make 1:1v saint I have run into the difficult;r of
d - !

‘

.un - .l 0 --~ -' 5-. .-¢ ho ‘ .V' 1,- a\-‘ '5 m’fi ‘ 7‘ . I. nigh
Siule .e.e1sin5 the inoaiance. 1ne enuneratea cha We ris tics of the
h- - --| I t o‘qa ‘Pnr' f. ~1'\ ‘1 ~ ‘1‘ f! ' .ernflnJ- .V—f l‘ r. 'L “ _‘fl 3 1'" nfiq' r- -‘ r, ‘
L...)‘I)J. JC-ICS ‘ J. O 041.; (no 0. L-LO\1 1...; Q. 1.1-11 xg-LSLLLLLU]. ‘J ‘5 gal G bllel 8 J CLLJ. lCcnttll 01,-. .

. n - fin... vnn ,' 'I’ ~ *0 :N f‘ 1 n-V‘ :- a: .J- A- v n I

For cl ri itJ I Y e maC.e airis ions ..hich are actaa_i; a1oiorarJ an;
13
.”“ " " '2 J' r“‘l ' 5". 1 “ '1‘," "J' 1“ ;:“|. "I
unreal. nanJ ,OLLLS a1e 010 states. I no.e, that t1e lCC fo1
_aritJ is not ‘unee1stanain5 as 18 CIth tne case.
‘, '- .ls.‘. n ”I r - qw’fi n—I 3'; Qtn- . '3 (1-, l",fi‘\_ 'I 1'. W00 t
}L 001.1pbl 1801-]. VI CQJV V111 U1. C'IlLu— 34.11; C:L-LU v .1-CI...L.~-L u-J, I OL.C1.VU O
. .n was . '2 J- r- -1 H r. "5“ ‘r "V"| 1"? ' 9.ch w . ’ \ -'3' l— . - 0‘“
seeioloQJ is ltoe_f a confine“ J.ocaen. na.J im301tant issues aie
w 1 - (_‘_ 5:. - 1 "1 “a 1,“,_ - . h , r, r, .rl'-’, ‘ ,
unresoivaoiq Mia, while I naJ have ~ ~ Jecl tLen as lince, a1;

. ‘ 1 . 0—" - n fly, 1‘ J‘ n" .1. '- . hw 4—. 9‘ ‘ nv‘1 . “I Q ‘_l.
guiuelines oi entrust ale actualiJ nare1in5 ana anoi5uous. The e is
4.1 .1 ' -.- n ' ' :0 *5 ,.- ° . n. ‘1‘ a. .1 .1. ' v, '
cnougn aefini eJ a ailierence in the a: roaches ana thli respective

reflections of reality. I; preference is oas ed on this distinction-

. " . (\ F- 1‘ "'\ ‘ r‘- "‘ q \' I ‘ . '0 .y‘ ‘ - r'h -‘ 'L‘,
It is t -e ini5e 01 man aexelcgea, the analJ 818 CI chan5e, aha UJC

A

quality of s=nSi : to human ex_:e riences, which make existential

sociology no1e valuable h.n co;nentio-al sociole5J for me.

 

‘18

I believe I have fallen into t11ese traps as a result of the
conventiona- roguiroments ana criteria of accegtibilitJ for sociologi
Laster’s theses. In f lfilling eon ventioz= al standaris, this pager,
although in some JaJs ailei, to some xtent 31:5 been self—defeating.

, BIBLIOGPAETI

._ -__ _..1;—-

65

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alder. F. "Operational Definitions in Sociology". the American

inurna1_2£_fissial2sx. V01. LII (March. 19“?). “BB-uh“. ‘

Cuzzort. R.P. Humanity and Modern Sociological Thought. New York:
. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969.

De Madariaga, Salvador. "The Dangerous Lure of Parrotland."

Ehgt_1_fia1g_Learneg, Edited by "Saturday Review." New York:
Simon and Schuster. 1968.

Denzin. Norman K. "The Kethodologies of Symbolic Interaction: A
Cultural Review of Research Techniques." S ia “s

Th292?h Symbolig Interaction. Edited by Gregory Stone and
Harvey Farberman. Nassachusetts: Xerox College Printing:
1970.

Douglas, Jack D. S a V a u' ° . New Jersey:

Princeton University Press. 1967.

Douglas. Jack D. "Understanding Everyday Life." Undersianggng,
Emgrydgx_L1£g. Edited by Jack Douglas, Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company. 1970.

Goffman. Erving. sen a o S r da . New
York: Doubleday and Co., Inc.. 1959.

Kinch. John W. ”A Formalized Theory of the Self-Concept." Ihg

a i Ianznal 9: sggjggogx, Vol. LXVIII (January: 1963).
“81'11’860 “ '

Kuhn. Hanford H. "Self Attitudes by Age. Sex. and Professional
Training." Soc a D c 09* hro a Svmb ra t'o .
Edited by Gregory Stone and Harvey Farberman. Massachusetts:
Xerox College Printing. 1970.

Kuhn. Hanford H. and KacPartland. Thomas S. "An Empirical Investigation

of Self Attitudes." American Sociological Eevigg, Vol. XIX
(February. 1954), 68-76.

Laing, R.D. Ih§_nizidgd_§g;£. Middlesex. England: Penguin Books
Ltd.. 1959

Lawrence. D.H. Selected Eoems. New York: Viking Press, 1957.

Lyman. Stanford M. and Scott. Marvin B. So 0 o: t be r .
New Yerk: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970.

Mania. Jerome G. and Meltzer. Bernard N. Symbolig_ln1gragtign.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 1967.

Meltzer. Bernard N. and Petras. John W. "The Chicago and Iowa
Schools of Symbolic Interaction." W

Collectiyg Eehayi :. Edited by Tamotsu Shibutani. .
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Inc.. 1970.
Morrison. D.E. and Henkel. RoE. The_§isniiisanss_Isst_92nizaxsrsxs

Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1970.

Quinney. R. "A Conception of Man and Society for CrimcnoIOgy."

Sggio logical Quart§211,1965. 119-127.
Shibutani. Tamotsu. Improzisgg tiggs; A Sggiolggical Study of finger.

Indianapolis: Hobbs-lierrill, 1966.

Stein, Maurice and Vidich. Arthur. Sggiglggy;gn_2;ial. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall. Inc., 1963.

'Wilson. Thomas P. "Normative and Interpretive Paradigms in Sociology."
s a . Edited by Jack Douglas.- Chicago:
Aldine PubliShing CO. . 19700

APPENDICES

67

APPENDIX A

NEW'HEAVEN AND EARTH
I

And so I cross into another world
shyly and in homage linger for an invitation
from this unknown that I would trespass on.

I am very glad, and all alone in the world.
all alone, and very glad. in a new world
‘where I am disembarked at last.

I could cry with joy, because I am in the new world. just ven-
tured in.

I could cry with joy, and quite freely. there is nobody to
know.

. And whosoever the unknown people of this unknown world
may be

they will never understand my weeping for joy to be adven-
turing among them

because it will still be a gesture of the old world I am making

which they will not understand. because it is quite. quite for--
eign to them.

II

I was so weary of the world.

I was so sick of it.

everything was tainted with myself.

skies, trees, flowers. birds, water,

people, houses, streets, vehicles. machines,

nations, armies. war. peace-talking,

work. recreation, governing, anarchy,

it was all tainted with myself. I knew it all to start with
because it was all myself.

68

When I gathered flowers, I knew it was myself plucking my
own flowering.

When I went in a train, I knew it was myself travelling by
my own invention.

lflhen I heard the cannon of the war, I listened with my own
ears to my own destruction. '

When I saw the torn dead, I knew it was my own torn dead
body.

It was all me, I had done it all in my own flesh.

1

III

I shall never forget the maniacal horror of it all in the end

'when everything was me, I knew it all already, I anticipated it
all in my soul

because I was the author and the result

I was the God and the creation at once;

creator, I looked at my creation;

created,I looked at myself, the creator:

it was a maniacal horror in the end.

I was a lover, I kissed the woman I loved,

And God of horror, I was kissing also myself.

I was a father and a begetter of children,

And oh, oh horror, I was begetting and conceiving in my own
bafyo

IV

'At last came death, sufficiency of death,

and that at last relieved me, I died.

I buried my beloved; it was good, I buried myself and was
gone.

'War came, and every hand raised to murder;

very good, very good, every hand raised to murder!

Very good, very good, I am a murderer!

It is good, I can murder and murder, and see them fall,

the mutilated,horror-struck youths, a multitude

one on another, and then in clusters together

smashed, all oosing with blood, and burned in heaps

going up in a foetid smoke to get rid of them,

the murdered bodies of youths and men in heaps

the heaps and heaps and horrible reeking heaps

till it is almost enough, till I am reduced perhaps;

thousands and thousands of gaping, hideous foul dead

that are youths and men and me

70

being burned with oil, and consumed in corrupt thick smoke,
that rolls
and taints and blackens the sky, till at last it is dark, dark as
night, or death, or hell
and I am dead, and trodden to nought in the smoke-sodden
tomb; 1
dead and trodden tonought in the wour black earth
of the tomb; dead and trodden to nought, trodden to nought.

V

God, but it is good to have died and been trodden out,
trodden to nought in sour, dead earth,

quite to nought,

absolutely to nothing

nothing

nothing

nothing.

For when it is quite, quite nothing, then it is everything.
‘When I am trodden quite out, quite, quite out,

every vestige gone, then I am here

risen, and setting my foot on another world

risen, accomplishing a resurrection

risen, not born again, but risen, body the same as before,
new beyond knowledge of newness, alive beyond life,

proud beyond inkling or furthest conception of pride,
living where life was never yet dreamed of, not hinted at,
here, in the other world, still terrestrial

myself, the same as before, yet unaccountably new.

VI

I, in the sour black tomb, trodden to absolute death
I put out my hand in the night, one night, and my hand
touched that which was verily not me,

verily it was not me.

'Where I had been was a sudden blaze,

a sudden flaring blaze!

So I put my hand out further, a little further
and I felt that which was not I.

it verily was not I,

it was the unknown.

71

Ha, I was a blaze leaping up!

I was a tiger bursting into sunlight.

I was greedy, I was mad for the unknown.

I, new-risen, resurrected, starved from the tomb,

starved from a life of devouring always myself,

now here was I, new-awakened, with my hand stretching out
and touching the unknown, the real unknown, the unknown

unknown.

My God, but I can only say

I touch, I feel the unknown!

I am the first comer!

Cortes, Pisarro, Columbus, Cabot, they are nothing, nothing!
I am the first comer!

I am the discoverer!

I have found the other world!

The unknown, the unknown!

I am thrown upon the shore,

I am covering myself with the said,
I am filling my mouth with the earth.
I am.vurrowing my body into the soil.
The unknown, the new world!

VII

It was the flank of my wife

I touched with my hand, I clutched with my hand,-
rising, new-awakened from the tomb!
It was the flank of my wife

whom I married years ago

at whose side I have lain for over a thousand nights

and all that previous while, she was I, she was I;

I touched her, it was I who touched and I who was touched.

"v.

Yet rising from the tomb, from the black oblivion

stretching our my hand, my hand flung like a drowned man's
hand on a rock,

I touched her flank and knew I was carried by the current in
death

over to the new world, and was climbing out on the shore,

risen, not to the old world, the old, changeless I, the old life,

wakened not to the old knowledge

but to a new earth, a new I, a new knowledge, a new world of

time o

72

Ah no, I cannot tell you what it is, the new world,

I cannot tell you the mad, astounded rapture of its discovery.
I shall be mad with delight before I have done,

and whosoever comes after will find me in the new world

a madman in rapture.

VIII

Green streams that flow from the innermost continent of the
new world ,

. what are they?

Green and illumined and travelling for ever

dissolved with the mystery of the innermost heart of.the con-
tinent,

mystery beyond knowledge or endurance, so sumptuous

out of the well-heads of the new world. -

The other, she too has strange green eyes!

'Hhite sands and fruits unknown and perfumes that never

can blow across the dark seas to out usual world!

And land that beats with a pulse!

And valleys that draw close in love!

And strange ways where I fall into oblivion of uttermost

living! -

Also she who is the other has strange-mounded breasts and
strange sheer slopes, and white levels.

Sightless and strong oblivion in utter life takes possession of
me!

The unknown, strong current of life supreme

drowns me and sweeps me away and holds me down

to the sources of mystery, in the depths,

extinguishes there my risen resurrected life .

and kindles it further at the core of utter mystery.

I

APPENDIX B

 

 

I". ‘1 , ‘
I' .-' ‘ " I‘ ——‘I‘ ’3 "4., ’
94’. ' ‘."‘.' 3 I" s . ' {‘3 5 (we
.'. 1.“? ’ - ‘ y w “_‘-_I . 1)‘ V
"V. :09. ‘V - ”I ) fly.-
,/, I
..—* x
U”

.p
t "‘ ‘\
‘K
\\ /

A ’ . r- - ' I"
"l ..o I” V O'1#"-—~' . g .’
v . —.‘. _ " ‘ I, 1 .
.‘ .‘r’ . 1” ,1, if]
'c )- I ‘.
' '/ "n
b 0

 

a: b
c‘“k\5’
.; e - .5
I" \ r ‘fii'fi‘
‘.‘ y
\' .
s:- 1" “‘11— I.
s " l, 'R _ \ -" I ’i"
1 _ A ‘ -‘ Q Q a '1 /\~ ’ '- _
‘\ l o — - 1 a . . " n ,l /" ‘7'] ’
f ‘ ' _ _ _. A - ’4'___ fp" ~t.4 '7’, a
s .,..._, 4/7
~. , I .
' . / II": I
’s' ’0

\
x
‘

 

1|!llllllllIllIll!lllmillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIll

 

3102539255